This paper reconsiders the contribution of Henry Ludwell Moore to dynamic economics through the use of harmonic analysis. We show that Moore’s analysis is innovative in its use of the Fourier transformation for the identification of cycles with different periodicities. This enables Moore to identify cycles of longer length with more precision than would be the case for the standard methodology. We are able to replicate the main features of his results and confirm the existence of a rainfall cycle with a periodicity similar to that of the business cycle (eight years). However, we find that the evidence for a longer (thirty-three-year) rainfall cycle is weaker than Moore indicates. We also argue that a central theme of Moore’s analysis—the relationship among rainfall, agricultural productivity, and the business cycle—marks an early precursor of the “real business cycle” approach. George Stigler’s (1962) dismissal of Moore’s work on cycles as “a complete failure” is therefore, in our opinion, unfair. Instead, we argue that, although his work is certainly flawed, it nevertheless deserves a place in both the history of business cycle theory and empirical economics.

中文翻译：

---

HENRY LUDWELL MOORE 使用谐波分析的新观点

本文通过调和分析重新考虑亨利·路德威尔·摩尔对动态经济学的贡献。我们表明，摩尔的分析在使用傅里叶变换来识别具有不同周期性的循环方面具有创新性。这使摩尔能够比标准方法更精确地识别更长的周期。我们能够复制他的结果的主要特征，并确认降雨周期的存在，其周期性类似于商业周期（八年）。然而，我们发现更长（三十三年）降雨周期的证据比摩尔所指出的要弱。我们还认为，摩尔分析的一个中心主题——降雨、农业生产力、和商业周期——标志着“真正的商业周期”方法的早期先驱。因此，在我们看来，乔治·斯蒂格勒 (George Stigler) (1962) 将摩尔关于周期的工作斥为“彻底失败”是不公平的。相反，我们认为，尽管他的工作肯定存在缺陷，但它在商业周期理论和实证经济学的历史中都应该占有一席之地。