The Great Depression of 1990

Reception

In late 1987, Milton Friedman was asked by the San Francisco Chronicle about Batra's new best-seller. Friedman replied that he would "not touch it with a ten foot pole".

In a review in the Los Angeles Times, economist Paul Erdman, considered the book to be "a strange mixture of voodoo historical theories and sound economic analysis. It provokes, and we can use the provocation."

Marketing professor J. Scott Armstrong was far more critical. Writing in the International Journal of Forecasting, Armstrong noted problems in three areas. First, Batra made an argument from authority based in part on his prolific publication record, but his work was much less cited than would be expected by someone claiming to be a "superstar" as Batra did. Second, Batra based his ideas on business cycles from a sample size of six and did not buttress his conclusions or methodology with citations to the relevant literature. Third, the reliance on Sarkar's philosophy led to imprecise terminology that prevented a coherent theory. Armstrong concluded that while some recommendations of the book were sensible, others were "potentially dangerous" and the conclusions drawn by the author were not supported by the text.

New York Times reporter Thomas C. Hayes noted Batra's "penchant for sweeping generalizations, factual errors and other missteps" and that despite impressive sales, "many academic and business economists have ignored the book".

The book was generally ignored after its key prediction failed to materialize in the 1990s.

References

| access-date=January 30, 2013 url=https://www.nytimes.com/1987/08/30/business/depression-guru-ravi-batra-economist-or-mystic-tune-in-around-1990-to-find-out.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm | access-date=January 30, 2013 | access-date=January 10, 2012}}

References

1. Sylvia Nasar. (July 11, 1993). "Protectionism Is Our Most Important Product". The New York Times.