Juglar cycle

In the Juglar cycle, which is sometimes called "the" business cycle, recovery and prosperity are associated with increases in productivity, consumer confidence, aggregate demand, and prices. In the cycles before World War II or that of the late 1990s in the United States, the growth periods usually ended with the failure of speculative investments built on a bubble of confidence that bursts or deflates. In these cycles, the periods of contraction and stagnation reflect a purging of unsuccessful enterprises as resources are transferred by market forces from less productive uses to more productive uses. Cycles between 1945 and the 1990s in the United States were generally more restrained and followed political factors, such as fiscal policy and monetary policy. Automatic stabilisation due to the government's budget helped defeat the cycle even without conscious action done by policy-makers;

A colloquial term for a crisis of this time scale is a "decennial crisis" (meaning one that occurs after about ten years). The phrase was noted during the Great Depression due to the similarity of the coming of the Panic of 1825 in London ten years after the end of the Napoleonic Wars, which had been bankrolled by Britain, with that of Black Monday in New York eleven years after the First World War, which had been similarly paid for by the United States. After the Second World War, however, the nearest equivalent in time and intensity was the recession of 1958.

Politically-based business cycle models

Another set of models tries to derive the business cycle from political decisions.

The partisan business cycle suggests that cycles result from the successive elections of administrations with different policy regimes. Regime A adopts expansionary policies, resulting in growth and inflation, but is voted out of office when inflation becomes unacceptably high. The replacement, Regime B, adopts contractionary policies reducing inflation and growth, and the downwards swing of the cycle. It is voted out of office when unemployment is too high, being replaced by Party A.

The political business cycle is an alternative theory stating that when an administration of any hue is elected, it initially adopts a contractionary policy to reduce inflation and gain a reputation for economic competence. It then adopts an expansionary policy in the lead up to the next election, hoping to achieve simultaneously low inflation and unemployment on election day.

Preventing business cycles

Because the periods of stagnation are painful for many who lose their jobs, pressure arises for politicians to try to smooth out the oscillations. An important goal of all Western nations since the Great Depression has been to limit the dips. Government intervention in the economy can be risky, however. For instance, some of Herbert Hoover's efforts (including tax increases) are widely, though not universally, believed to have deepened the depression.

Managing economic policy to even out the cycle is a difficult task in a society with a complex economy, even when Keynesian theory is applied. According to some theorists, notably nineteenth-century advocates of communism, this difficulty is insurmountable. Karl Marx in particular claimed that the recurrent business cycle crises of capitalism were inevitable results of the system's operations. In this view, all that the government can do is to change the timing of economic crises. The crisis could also show up in a different form, for example as severe inflation or a steadily increasing government deficit. Worse, by delaying a crisis, government policy is seen as making it more dramatic and thus more painful.

Additionally, Neoclassical economics plays down the ability of Keynesian policies to manage an economy. Challenging the Phillips Curve since the 1960s, economists like Nobel Laureate Milton Friedman or 2006 Nobel Laureate Edmund Phelps have made ground in their arguments that inflationary expectations negate the Phillips Curve in the long run. The stagflation of the 70's supported their theory by flying in the face of Keynesian predictions. Friedman has gone so far as to argue, that all the Federal Reserve System can do is to avoid making large mistakes, as he believes they did by contracting the money supply very rapidly in the face of the Stock Market Crash of 1929, in which they made what would have been a recession into a great depression. (Friedman calls the Great Depression The Great Contraction because of this).