Some ways to approach crisis:
*the breakdown of the global capitalist fraternity or intl correspective competition due to a slow down in the rate of accumulation; zero sum games in which one capital's or nation's gains are necessarily another's losses (e.g., through greenfield investments in already overs*bscribed lines that visit serious moral depreciation upon competitors). This kind of Trotyskist definition of world crisis seems to have much to recommend it especially the way Brenner has developed it, and it seems that we have been suffering through a global crisis since the early 70s.
*a slow down in the rate of accumulation such capital accumulation no longer has the tendency to allow for the raising of the real wage over time. We could say that the system entered such a slow down in the early 70s and has yet to exit.
*indeed a reversal of whatever social gains the working class had been able to achieve; again given retrogression over the last 25 years, we could say that we remain in a global crisis.
I get Brad's journal confused with Journal of Economic Issues and Journal of Economic Literature. I think his is the Journal of Economic Literature. But it has the latest on business cycle research in the latest issue, with an intro by Brad. Haven't read it. But it should be incorporated into our discussion if we are to discuss the changing types (currency or bop or urban-rural scissors or other sectoral or general crises), scope (from ruble to real overnight), durations, severity of the business or crisis cycle under capitalism.
We may now have longer, more shallow upturns followed by ever more severe, albeit shorter, downturns. There are many variations possible so the evidence has to be consulted, though an explanation for why there are cycles at all must be provided.
yours, rakesh