The economic systems that are in place reflect the prevailing ideology of the state. Therefore such instability cannot be attributed to economic systems per se. The reigning capitalist economic system suffers from marked instability; so periodically it is referred to as the business cycle (list of US business cycles 6.

) and is a primary concern of (capitalist) macroeconomics. The history of the past 100 years of the implementation of the capitalist economic system shows that it is hard to treat these instabilities as exceptions. There are several takes on the explanation for the business cycle; a thorough exposition requires a level of academic rigour that is unwarranted here. A usual treatise on business cycle dynamics concerns itself with the variants of capitalist systems and data on various variables, and does not delve into different ideological systems or societal models. The lack of consensus and the nature of capitalist economic studies, not surprisingly make prominent economists argue that the biggest failure of (capitalist) economic theory is the failure to explain the business cycle, the size of fluctuation in prices and causes of growth and innovation7.

Smith and Walras implied that the economy can be understood as an equilibrium seeking and sustaining system and mainstream capitalist economists view busts as outcomes of external shocks to the system. Both classical and Keynesian economists are mired in the debate over the agility of the market in the event of aggregate demand and supply shocks to achieve long-run equilibrium8.

Classical economists posit that prices adjust rapidly to imbalances in quantities supplied and demanded, so that the economy gets to its long-run equilibrium in a few months or less, hence recession is likely to end quickly (in the strictest version equilibrium is simply maintained). Since adjustment occurs quickly, they argue that little is gained by government intervention (consistent with the invisible hand argument). Keynesians argue that the prices/wages do not adjust itself quickly and return of the economy to long-run equilibrium would be slow, and do not believe in the self-correcting powers of the economy, hence the role of government in fighting recessions (for example Keynes argued for an increase in spending).

Others like Minsky contended that even in the absence of external shocks, instability is a fundamental characteristic of financial systems in capitalist economies. Others from the Austrian school argue that the inherent instability is due to intervention of the government such as the role of central banks, and would not occur in free market capitalism. In general (with few exceptions), all positions look to extend the freedom of ownership to the maximum possible as free marketeers in spirit, but with varying caveats and degrees of government intervention to achieve stability. If resolving the problem of the business cycle was the issue, the solutions within the capitalist framework are highly contentious, where holding on to the ideals lacks practical relevance and the patchwork interventions often violate the very central precepts of capitalist economics. Rehashing the words of Islamic scholar Shatibi9 for capitalism, violating the capitalist ideal under the pretext of pursuing the objectives of capitalism is like the one who cares about the spirit without the body, and since the body without the spirit is useless, therefore the spirit without the body is useless too.