His analysis is mostly fine. (The more I look at the book, the more I like it, actually. I know a lot of the stuff in there, but not all the details, and it's been put together very well. He has a few spots I disagree on, of course, but it's good work.)
What I'd say here is: basically, the cleantech investments -- putting solar on people's roofs and batteries in people's houses and EVs in people's driveways -- are still in the "Early Part of the Cycle" and haven't even reached the "Bubble" phase yet.
We're still in the phase where companies are scrambling to borrow money to switch to EV trucks, and agencies are scrambling to borrow money to switch to EV buses, *because the financial payback is so good*. In fact, we've only just arrived at this phase, after getting out of the "early adopter willing to pay extra for new tech" phase. As people and companies cut their costs by switching to renewables, their (unchanged!) income can cover the debts they incur to switch to renewables, plus more. While this is going on, you don't get a debt blowup.
And the hiring due to the Great Energy Transition means that you have more people with income. And pressure to raise wages, which is something which is actually happening. This heralds *inflation*, not recession.
There can be mini-bubbles which pop during this phase (such as the yieldco boom/bust or the overleveraged business model of SolarCity) but they don't translate to full economic recessions. When we start approaching 50% cleantech adoption rates, then we start having high chances of a bubble and a pop, IMO. (Norway's already there with electric cars -- wonder if we'll see something happen there.)
Dalio discusses the 1923-1927 economic boom, a tech boom driven by real improvements such as motorcars and automation. *That* is where we are standing right now: we're in 1923, economically.
----
Dalio's main weakness in his book is failure to analyze the 19th century extensively; he doesn't have a good Industrial Revolution analysis.
On the other hand, he's dead right about the risk of war, in the War Economies section. The rise of dumbass authoritarian leaders, the rising conflict between the mistreated poor/middle-class masses and the economic aristocracy, it's a recipe for destructive wars. I'd *really* like to avoid this but basically the only way out of it is for supporters of wealth redistribution and/or power redistribution to win (as FDR did, as Wilson did, as Lord Grey did in the UK in 1830). The renewables revolution *may* help this happen or it may not.
