Anyway, this is interesting. I'll look up these economists.
On the face of it, I think it's interesting how economists are hesitant to consider money real. Money is fictional to most economists. What's real is consumer surplus, utility or some other abstract way of reasoning about consumption. ...skeptical eyebrow.
I liked David Graeber's book about money. First, because I like his intellectual shit-stirring. Second, because I think he's right about the origin of money. Money evolved from debt. Debt did not evolve from money, as liberal 17/18th century thinkers assumed.
Beyond this relatively simple point, I don't think he had much of anything concrete. But, as he talked about little local revolts and the role debt played... idk. Makes you think.
In any case, from a reactive european perspective in the post financial crisis world... I suspect that what business cycles are is a system wide insolvency. It turns out tat some of the money isn't real. That is, some of the debts floating around the economy are not going to be paid. The dollar isn't worth a dollar, your bank doesn't really have your money, the stock will never pay a dividend, the national debt will never be repaid, someone isn't as rich as they think they are, the mortgages are in arrears.
The crisis, whether it's a on banks, devaluation of assets, currency inflation... this is a bankruptcy proceeding, a negotiation determining who really owes who what, given that not everyone can get paid.