The period Don talks about does not stand out for its unstable GDP. Sure, the postbellum 19th century real GDP was more dynamic with deeper recessions than the antebellum GDP (at least to the available quality of those numbers), and more dynamic than our last half century. But, it differed from both of those periods by a higher overall growth rate. And GDP was more stable with shallower recessions than in the preWW2 20th century.

So it makes for a mediocre point. It does seem that greater GDP growth is associated with dynamism, so I’m not so sure GDP stability per se is a desirable goal. It seems first and foremost you want GDP growth. Perhaps then a highly dynamic GDP with relatively shallow recessions should be the goal (who cares if positive growth is widely erratic, as long as it is positive). But then, that’s what we had during the postbellum half century.