In the early 18th century, the American colonies were hit by an economic contraction so severe it mirrored a modern depression. There was no systemic bank failure, no catastrophic war, and no obvious policy blunder. Instead, the villain was Edward Teach—better known as Blackbeard.
At the height of the Golden Age of Piracy, Atlantic marauders effectively blockaded the port of Charleston and choked off the vital trade arteries stretching from the Caribbean to Long Island. As trade ceased and the money supply evaporated, the colonial economy collapsed. This proves a historical curiosity that defies almost every modern business-cycle theory, and according to Tyler Goodspeed, that is exactly the point.
Goodspeed, the chief economist at ExxonMobil and a former acting chair of the Council of Economic Advisers, has spent years analyzing four centuries of economic data. His journey through the archives—from colonial trade collapses to the 2008 financial crisis—led him to a conclusion that is as unsettling as it is clarifying: Recessions are not cycles. They are random, idiosyncratic shocks. And because history never stops happening, they will never stop occurring.
In his book, Recession: The Real Reasons Economies Shrink and What to Do About It, Goodspeed argues that the quest to predict the next downturn is less a science and more a form of secular superstition. We are, in his words, “pattern-seeking mammals,” driven by a psychological need to link trauma to a precipitating action so You can avoid it next time. But the data suggests that the “crystal ball” of economic forecasting is largely an exercise in curve-fitting—explaining the past while remaining blind to the future.
The fallacy of the business cycle
For decades, the bedrock of macroeconomic thought has been the idea that economies expand and contract in predictable waves. From the short-term three-year cycles to the sweeping 60-year “super cycles” proposed by theorists like Nikolai Kondratiev, the industry has been obsessed with rhythm. Goodspeed tested these frameworks against 400 years of data, and none of them survived.
His research found no statistical relationship between the length of an expansion and the severity of the ensuing bust. A long boom does not guarantee a hard crash, nor does a short expansion predict a mild correction. Instead of a recurring heart-beat, the economy looks more like a flat line interrupted by random, violent jolts.
Goodspeed notes that much of this misunderstanding stems from the origins of the field. Many early theorists were trained as physicians, bringing a medical vocabulary—crisis, malady, remedy—to economics. This mindset encourages analysts to look for a “symptom” that precedes a crash. Because there are far more data points for stock prices and home values than there are actual recessions, it is mathematically easy to find a peak that happened just before a downturn and claim it was the cause. In reality, these are often coincidences that humans, as natural storytellers, weave into narratives of greed, hubris, and inevitable correction.
The true drivers: Energy, war, and locusts
If recessions aren’t cycles, what actually causes them? Goodspeed argues that the primary culprits are massive, sudden shocks to energy supplies and the outbreak of war—two forces that are nearly impossible to replace or route around on short notice.
Energy is the invisible substrate of every economy; it powers the fertilizer for food, the steel for infrastructure, and the fuel for transport. When that supply is severed, the economy doesn’t just slow down—it breaks. This perspective allows Goodspeed to reframe some of the most famous crises in history, challenging the dominant narratives taught in business schools.
| Event | Traditional Narrative | Goodspeed’s Finding |
|---|---|---|
| 2008 Financial Crisis | Subprime mortgages & lax regulation | Record oil price spike in June 2008 |
| 2001 Downturn | The “Dot-com” bubble burst | The shock of the 9/11 attacks |
| Great Depression | Stock market crash of 1929 | Proliferation of shocks, including locust plagues |
| 1873 U.S. Recession | Railroad over-expansion | A “providential” locust plague |
For instance, while the 2008 crisis is remembered as a failure of exotic financial instruments, Goodspeed contends that the record oil price spike of that year was the actual breaking point. He argues that the additional thousands of dollars in energy costs forced upon ordinary households, combined with mortgage resets, is what truly broke the consumer. Similarly, he argues that the “dot-com recession” is a misnomer; the actual decline in output occurred almost entirely in the quarter following the September 11 attacks.
Debunking “Creative Destruction”
Perhaps the most provocative part of Goodspeed’s analysis is his rejection of “creative destruction”—the widely held belief that recessions serve a salutary purpose by purging inefficient “zombie” firms and reallocating resources to more productive uses.
The data, Goodspeed found, does not support the idea of a cleansing function. Instead, recessions act as “rampant age discriminators.” They systematically penalize younger firms and marginal workers while protecting entrenched incumbents who have the capital to weather the storm. Rather than sparking innovation, research and development typically contract sharply during downturns, exactly when new approaches are most needed.
When the economy eventually recovers, it doesn’t emerge leaner or more efficient. Instead, the composition of the economy looks remarkably similar to how it would have looked had the recession never occurred. The “destruction” is real, but the “creative” part is largely a myth.
The policy of “Doing No Harm”
The logical conclusion of a random-shock model is a total shift in how governments and businesses approach risk. If recessions are episodic and unpredictable, then trying to “stimulus-proof” an economy is a futile exercise. More dangerously, applying contractionary fiscal or monetary policy—such as austerity—during a downturn is almost certain to exacerbate the damage.
For policymakers, Goodspeed suggests a Hippocratic approach: First, do no harm. When a random shock hits, the priority should be stability and the prevention of further contraction, rather than attempting to “correct” a cycle that doesn’t exist.
For business leaders, the takeaway is to move away from forecasting and toward insurance. Since you cannot predict the timing of the next Blackbeard or energy spike, the goal is not to time the market, but to build sufficient resilience to survive the inevitable, random shock.
Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute financial, investment, or legal advice.
While Goodspeed’s analysis is primarily backward-looking, its implications are immediate for those monitoring current geopolitical volatility and energy markets. The next critical checkpoint for global economic stability will be the upcoming series of OPEC+ ministerial meetings, where production quotas will be set amidst ongoing Middle East tensions—reminding us that the “shocks” Goodspeed describes remain the primary drivers of our economic fate.
Do you believe recessions are predictable cycles or random events? Share your thoughts in the comments or share this story with your network.
