I'm making a (perhaps reflexive) statement about economic cycles, that they are effectively defined as a period of growth followed by a shock. Without growth, t

I'm making a (perhaps reflexive) statement about economic cycles, that they are effectively defined as a period of growth followed by a shock. Without growth, there is no shock. Our current cycle has been characterized by very low growth. It is also much longer than typical, but I think this simply follows from the fact that we haven't had a lot of growth. Growth seems to be picking up, though, and I think over the entire period of the cycle will soon be "enough" to trigger the next cycle.