现行的经济制度反映了国家占主导地位的意识形态。因此，这种不稳定不能简单归咎于经济制度本身。当前占主导地位的资本主义经济制度存在明显的不稳定性；因此，人们周期性地将其称为商业周期（美国商业周期列表 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.

)和是(资本主义)宏观经济学的首要关切。过去一百年资本主义经济制度的实践表明,很难将这些不稳定现象视为例外。对商业周期的解释有若干种观点;要做透彻的阐述,需要相当严格的学术论证,而这在此并无必要。关于商业周期动态的通行论著关注的是资本主义体系的各种变体以及各类变量的数据,并不深入探讨不同的意识形态体系或社会模式。由于缺乏共识,加之资本主义经济研究本身的性质,也就不足为奇了:一些著名经济学家认为,(资本主义)经济理论最大的失败在于未能解释商业周期、价格波动的幅度以及增长与创新的成因7。

) 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.

史密斯和瓦尔拉斯暗示，经济可以被理解为一个寻求并维持均衡的系统，主流资本主义经济学家则将经济萧条视为系统受到外部冲击的结果。古典经济学家与凯恩斯主义经济学家都陷入了一场争论之中：在总需求与总供给发生冲击时，市场能够多大程度上灵活地实现长期均衡。

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.

古典经济学家认为,价格会迅速对供给量和需求量的失衡作出调整,因此经济能在几个月甚至更短时间内回到长期均衡,衰退也很可能迅速结束(在最严格的版本中,均衡被认为是始终得以维持的)。由于调整很快发生,他们主张政府干预收效甚微(这与"看不见的手"的论点一致)。凯恩斯主义者则认为,价格和工资并不会迅速自行调整,经济回到长期均衡的过程将十分缓慢,他们也不相信经济具有自我纠正的能力,因此主张政府在对抗衰退中发挥作用(例如凯恩斯主张增加政府支出)。

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).

然而，像明斯基这样的学者主张，即使没有外部冲击，不稳定性也是资本主义经济中金融体系的根本特征。奥地利学派的一些人则认为，内在的不稳定性源于政府干预，例如中央银行的作用，而在自由市场资本主义中并不会出现这种情况。总体而言（少数例外除外），各种观点都力图将所有权的自由扩展到尽可能大的程度，它们在精神上都是自由市场主义者，只是在实现稳定时所附加的条件和政府干预的程度各不相同。如果解决商业周期问题是核心议题，那么资本主义框架内的解决方案便极具争议：坚守理想在实践中已失去意义，而零敲碎打式的干预又常常违背资本主义经济学的核心原则。借用伊斯兰学者沙特比（Shatibi）9的话来说，以追求资本主义目标为借口而违背资本主义理想，就如同只关心精神而不顾躯体的人；既然没有精神的躯体毫无用处，那么没有躯体的精神同样毫无用处。

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.