Different sort of post, but I figured if I wanted to learn about the (de)merits of a particular school then this'd be the place.

A cursory glance at the New Classical wikipedia page claims that such models had low explanatory power, so can anybody give me a crash-course on what the problems were/are? The obvious one is the assumption that markets clear in the short-run, because nominal rigidity is probably the closest thing you have to a fact in econ.

What about the neoclassical position on the business cycle? When you push past all the shillery, there doesn't actually seem to be much respect for neoclassical accounts of the Recession--I'm thinking specifically of Ohanian's paper here, which I know /u/Integralds has criticised for missing the fact that small capital wedges can lead to large labour wedges (although I'm not too sure how a positive capital wedge could lead to a negative labour wedge). Ohanian's empirics seem pretty solid (but what do I know?); if the nominal side of the economy were to remain totally stabilised--say we have perfect NGDPLT--would neoclassical macro have anything to say about the business cycle then? Or are technology shocks simply too minimal to have any significant impact?