The present article assesses the capacity of modern macroeconomics to offer a convincing explanation of the clusters of errors in business and their recurrence. Unfortunately, as we attempt to argue in the first part of the section, the epistemological and theoretical framework of such an approach (holism, empiricism, aggregatism, mechanicism) they award to the human behavior and personal interactions, put it in the impossibility to recognize cyclical phenomena and to systematically identify the causes. We attempted to select from all the mainstream arguments the logical, non-mathematical analysis in order to capture without difficulty the essence of the specific arguments. The Keynesian explanations can be, unfortunately, hardly taken into consideration as they are built on the neglect of some fundamental natural truth such as scarcity, non-neutrality of money as well as the impossibility of rational resource allocation in centralized planning. Neo-Keynesianism is an attempt to defend the traditional doctrine through debatable judgments, without giving up the major errors embodied in the founding works. The new classical macro-economics is a weak defense of the free market built on fictions like the instantaneous adjustment of the production to new data and perfect anticipations that take into considerations all the data at a certain moment. This school is in fact a Keynesian – neo-Keynesian brand. The monetarism didn’t benefit from an explicit treatment in this sections: a) because it does not make references to the principal statements in others parts of the work and b) because today there is nothing but a big neo-Keynesian mainstream which already included what was left to be included in the lessons of the monetarism that Blinder presentation and the Economics of Samuelson or Mankiw showed.