These boom bust cycles are caused by fiat money, inflationary debt/spending, government stimulus and over regulation that causes false market signals and creates bubbles, it’s not a capitalism problem, capitalism would be the solution.
As soon as countries adopted fiat money, that one cycle mostly disappeared and even its timing became much more variable. But there are a lot of confounding factors, so this isn't the smoking gun it appears at first.
If anything, they got better since the introduction of Keynesianism, not worse.
It's inherent to capitalism. Don't try to delude yourself.
(It doesn't have to be "pure". "Simple harmonic motion" is the result of when the negative second derivative fully characterizes a system. There are, of course, plenty of systems that aren't as simple, and things get complicated... but where ever you get a significant negative second derivative you've got a system that is going to exhibit some sort of cyclic behavior, even the the cycles vary wildly in size, duration, how fractal the value behaves on smaller time scales, etc.)
In fact, historically, they haven't.
This is only possible because of the volatility of capital markets that lead to even higher volatility in production which leads to volatility in general markets which leads to volatility in capital markets again - there is a loop of unstable prices.
And this loop is the unique and defining feature of capitalism. It didn't exist before capitalism, and in experiments like those of the Soviet Union, it didn't exist either, because there were no capital markets at all.
What you're describing is a behaviour of capital markets, but due to a lack of perspective it's described as a behaviour of economies in general - and it isn't.
Basically every time varying system, no matter how complex, can be thought of as a system of differential equations. Human systems of production -- any such system -- is a time varying system, and as such, probably has some cyclic behavior, instability, etc. somewhere inside.
I gave examples of economic systems that do not.
(Also, as you read my message here, recall my claim isn't that communisms has cycles and capitalism doesn't, but everything does because there is no way to build an economic system that doesn't have -d^2/dt^2 terms showing up somewhere in it.)
The economy of the USSR, in aggregate, literally only ever suffered two recessions - one in 1963 due to political instability (which was a very minor fall in GDP), and one at the beginning of WW2. The collapse of the USSR itself was a purely political issue - the USSR maintained growth right up until its dissolution.
I understand your point, but it is a case of diagnosing a second-order effect but not taking into account it's actual impact. Outside of capitalism, there were not really any economic systems that had such gigantic vorticity that they would spontaneously enter disastrous depressions.
Those cycles that you diagnosed, for example, eventually ended up by either a worker lying to stop the cascade, or someone at the planning office realizing the issue. They never snowballed into a Great Depression, because that simply could not happen. The reason the behaviour of unrestrained vorticity is possible in capitalism is because of capital markets. Without capital markets, or an equivalent, the behaviour you are diagnosing is inevitably dampened.
Think about it like a PID loop - there is a -d^2/dt^2 term in it, the D-loop term. But because of the I-term and the P-term, if you tune it correctly, general error always goes down over a full wavelength. Capital markets allow the D-term to overpower the loop.
There's a reason that interest and usury are prohibited in Islam, Judaism, and Christianity.
Market competition is good. Interest and usury are destructive dangerous practices.
Economics is complicated. Pointing to one lever and saying "I understand the whole machine" is lazy. I call it 'playing dot to dot'. If you just draw lines between any dots you please, you can make the picture look like anything you want.
But there is a real picture there, it has lots of dots, and its worth understanding. Pontificating on the internet is not showing real understanding.
I'm not claiming to understand the whole machine, however, we know for certain there are rotten practices that make the machine unstable and also much more difficult to understand. Interest and usury are at the core, along with other things that are prohibited by Islam (e.g. selling things that you don't own and several more).
Once those are removed, the system will become much more stable, fair, and better off for everyone.
That sounds like a government problem--not a capitalism problem. Though I do agree that this is the heart of the fiat issue.
> At times, many nations from ancient Greece to ancient Rome have outlawed loans with any interest. Though the Roman Empire eventually allowed loans with carefully restricted interest rates, the Catholic Church in medieval Europe, as well as the Reformed Churches, regarded the charging of interest at any rate as sinful (as well as charging a fee for the use of money, such as at a bureau de change). [1]
So we see how the Church changed its opinion over time. They weaseled their way out of the prohibition, and today they don't say anything. Separation of Church and State also made it easier to engage in these sorts of practices.
On a side note: I have seen some good analysis/speculation/theorizing done about how interest/loaning would work in a world without government-regulation. Have a look, there may be some redemption in those concepts for you if you divorce them from government meddling (which I would posit, causes a huge chunk of all the evils we blame on capitalism).
The superior model is investments, similar to how VCs invest in companies in exchange for equity. Loans are to be relegated to charity only. If we apply all this, loans will become close to non-existent. We have seen this successfully work because interest is prohibited in Islam, yet it was able to flourish especially in the Islamic Golden Age to push the boundaries of knowledge and science and exploration, during a time where Europe was in the dark ages.