>Deflation is not an issue if accompanied by growth Which it isn't, because it acts as a choke on spending. >It's acknowledged that the period from 1874-1896

>Deflation is not an issue if accompanied by growth Which it isn't, because it acts as a choke on spending. >It's acknowledged that the period from 1874-1896 was one such event. Acknowledged by historical revisionists. >As for banking panics, they were always particularly bad in the United States because of geographic limitations, specific bondholding requirements and other restrictions. Or rather, lack of counter-cyclical spending. >Theory of the firm has many variants. Coasian, Alchian, evolutionary, etc. Again, what type of neoclassicism? What is neoliberalism, anyway? A political ideology that champions unconstrained markets, privatization, fiscal austerity and zero constraints on the movement of goods and capital. This isn't a controversial definition even if people do use it with a snarly tone of voice. >There was no sudden "jump" in the 1970s, If you take a look at the share of labor's income as a % of GDP there absolutely was. The trigger point was likely Reagan firing the air traffic controllers (that marked government support for open season on all unions).