Tsarin tattalin arziki da ake da su suna nuna akidar da ta mamaye gwamnati. Saboda haka, irin wannan rashin kwanciyar hankali ba za a iya dangana shi ga tsarin tattalin arziki kai tsaye ba. Tsarin tattalin arzikin jari-hujja da ke mulki yana fama da rashin kwanciyar hankali sosai; don haka lokaci-lokaci ana kiransa zagayowar kasuwanci (jerin zagayowar kasuwanci na Amurka 6).

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.

) وهو مسألة أساسية لدى الاقتصاد الكلي (الرأسمالي). يُظهر تاريخ المائة عام الماضية من تطبيق النظام الاقتصادي الرأسمالي أنه من الصعب اعتبار هذه التقلبات استثناءات. هناك عدة تفسيرات لتفسير الدورة الاقتصادية؛ ولا يتطلب عرضها بشكل وافٍ مستوى من الدقة الأكاديمية غير مبرر هنا. يهتم البحث المعتاد في ديناميكيات الدورة الاقتصادية بمتغيرات الأنظمة الرأسمالية والبيانات المتعلقة بمختلف المتغيرات، ولا يتعمق في الأنظمة الأيديولوجية المختلفة أو النماذج المجتمعية. ومن غير المستغرب أن يؤدي غياب الإجماع وطبيعة الدراسات الاقتصادية الرأسمالية إلى أن يرى اقتصاديون بارزون أن أكبر إخفاق للنظرية الاقتصادية (الرأسمالية) هو عجزها عن تفسير الدورة الاقتصادية، وحجم تقلبات الأسعار، وأسباب النمو والابتكار⁷.

) 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 da Walras sun nuna cewa tattalin arziki za a iya fahimtarsa a matsayin tsarin da ke neman tare da kiyaye daidaito, kuma masana tattalin arzikin jari-hujja na al'ada suna ganin cewa koma-baya na faruwa ne sakamakon girgizar waje da ke shafar tsarin. Dukkan masana tattalin arzikin gargajiya da na Keynes suna cikin muhawara kan yadda kasuwa ke iya saurin daidaitawa idan girgiza ta faru ga bukatar gaba daya da kuma samarwa gaba daya, domin cimma daidaiton dogon lokaci.8

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.

Masana tattalin arziki na gargajiya sun bayyana cewa farashi yana daidaituwa cikin sauri ga rashin daidaito tsakanin adadin kayan da aka samar da kuma buƙatar da ake yi, ta yadda tattalin arziki zai kai ga daidaiton dogon lokaci cikin watanni kaɗan ko ƙasa da haka, saboda haka koma bayan tattalin arziki zai iya ƙarewa cikin sauri (a cikin sigar da ta fi tsauri, daidaito yana ci gaba da kasancewa kawai). Tun da daidaitawa tana faruwa cikin sauri, suna jayayya cewa babu abin da ake samu daga shiga tsakani na gwamnati (wanda ya dace da hujjar hannun da ba a gani ba). Masu bin tsarin Keynes kuwa suna jayayya cewa farashi da albashi ba sa daidaituwa da kansu cikin sauri, kuma komawar tattalin arziki zuwa daidaiton dogon lokaci zai yi a hankali, kuma ba sa yarda da ikon tattalin arziki na gyara kansa, saboda haka rawar da gwamnati take takawa wajen yaƙi da koma bayan tattalin arziki. Misali, Keynes ya yi jayayya don a ƙara kashe kuɗi.

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.

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.