PK> Bob, you have just justified unemployment, poverty and social
PK> misery by inferring that we must remain victims of these cycles.

You are completely mixing up two quite separate issues here.

Yes, its very undesirable that that stuff happens. BUT its a complete
different matter whether we actually know how to prevent those cycles.

Whats desirable and whats possible aint the same thing at all.

PK> Aren't cycles really voodoo?

Nope, since we have had them for hundreds of years, and we are greatly
improving our skill at avoiding the worst of them, no they aint voodoo.

PK> What you imply is that we must remain victims of recessions and
PK> depressions.

Nope, he is saying that we dont know how to avoid economic cycles.
That its extremely difficult to stop them and we dont know how to.

And the economic cycles we see today are nothing like what we saw
in the past with the Great Depression and stuff. And that even when
people are say unemployed, they are nothing even remotely like destitute
in a society like Aust, their kids certainly wont be dying coz that
person cant afford medical treatment. We have social safetynets which
allow a quite reasonable standard of living for those who do get
affected by the worst of the economic cycles we dont know how to avoid.

PK> The Recovery Myth explains their cause and shows how we can
PK> extirpate cycles/reccesions.

Nope, it makes claims which it gets wrong.

PK> The real frauds are surely those economists who repeat that
PK> recessions cannot be controlled - we must remain their victims.

Maybe you would care to explain why no country has ever managed to avoid
economic cycles then. And that even those who have given the illusion
they have, have later completely imploded in an economic sense and ended
up with a far far worse result eventually. Like Cuba today for example.

The magic wand to avoid economic cycles has not been found and that
book certainly doesnt contain the recipe.

PK> What sort of economists/high priests are these who promote such
PK> forlorn hegemony?

Again, utterly confusing whats desirable with whats possible.

The entire basis for Marxian economics was that one, the current outcome
was thought to stink, prescription for a solution. Pity it was a dud tho.
And got most of the basics wrong too, not only didnt capitalism wither
away, it pissed on their solution comprehensively in out come.

--- PQWK202