I will try to respond [please be aware I avoid internet discussions that get sarcastic or personal and yet I don't want to do the discourtesy of not responding].
Neoclassics do indeed argue that the Great Depression could have corrected itself (as Michael points out). BUT they add that it can be done within a socially\politically acceptable amount of time. Some Marxists and some Classicals would argue that the Great Depression theoretically could have corrected itself BUT certainly not within an acceptable timeframe. [FYI,Keynes himself *mostly* took a non-marxist position close to this.] Other Marxists\Classicals (many today) take this position but add that short run demand management issues (i.e. Keynes or Kalecki) either further exacerbate or would independently prohibit the a resumption. One school, "pure" Post-Keynsians such as Paul Davidson would argue that there are no long run factors\long run stabilizers, even in theory.
>Heard of the Great Depression? Figured out how that
>ended (hint: it wasn't through market self-correction)?
In the United States the Great Depression ended in 2 waves, the first wave being from 1933-36. The view of Marxists and Classicals hardly thinks that the Depression ended through "self-correction" (in any meaningful sense of the term). They think it ended through savage and wasteful destruction of capital, devalorisation of capital and shift in the distribution of income to capital - all of which lead to restored levels of profitability. Many would also add to the boost given to the very end of the recovery by re-armement. An short version of an interesting (and openminded, eclectic) presentation by Jim Devine can be found at <http://clawww.lmu.edu/Faculty/JDevine/subpages/depr/shortdepr.html>
> Meanwhile, profit rates don't matter to anybody but dogmatic Marxists.
There are a wide range of economists who find that profit rates "matter". These run from those inspired by Adam Smith and Ricardo, to Marx, to Sraffa, Kalecki, and even von Neumann. In fact almost any non-neoclassical, long period analyst.
I would sincerely be interested in getting references for some good non "dogmatic" marxists (or non-marxists) for whom profits rates do not matter. Any suggestions?
> What capitalists care about is cash flow, the rate at which money and
> wealth
>flows into their portfolios.
As every dot com learned: no profits, no cash flow. Sooner or later.
>Every statistic on the planet documents that
>this is not a problem. Never really has been, but it certainly isn't now.
Examples?
>There is no shortage of investable surplus wealth. The body is buried
>elsewhere.
This seems to confuse profits with "investable surplus wealth". Investment resources be obtained by a credit decision (which is driven by expectations of future profits) or by retained earnings from past profits. In any event, the key (where "the body is buried") is the decision to invest which is driven by expectations of future PROFITS which is influenced by PROFIT RATES.
Hope this helps. Paul