Bibliographic record
Abstract
Friedman and Schwartz (1963, Chapter 3) argued that the stagnant money supply caused a long depression from 1869 to 1879. However, Friedman and Schwartz also stated that the real GNP average rose 6.5 percent per year, wage earners in manufacturing in 1879 rose 33 percent more than in 1869, and basic production nearly doubled from 1869 to 1880. The opposition between real GNP and nominal GNP raises a paradox in the business cycle theory: the prosperity of real GNP coexists with the depression of nominal GNP. As nominal GNP is overestimated relative to real GNP during hyperinflation, real GNP moves opposite to nominal GNP if the deflation rate is greater than the growth rate of real GNP. Since deflation is caused by the increase in productivity in the 1870s instead of insufficient demand, I examine monetary explanation for the long depression and conclude that the change in money stock explained neither GNP nor deflation from 1869 to 1879. Besides, I find cases that the increase in money stock makes velocity decline instead of the increase in GNP and price level, which implies the ineffectiveness of monetary policy. I use the increase in labor supply to explain another paradox: both the unemployment rate and the number of employees kept increasing in the 1870s. Thus, I conclude that the US economy in the 1870s was in prosperity and we should identify either depression or prosperity by the number of employees and real GNP, not unemployment rate and nominal GNP.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".