On Bob Murphy’s Facebook Page I asked:
Austrian economics decries the boom-bust cycle caused by central banks and governments interfering with free markets.
For moral reasons, I support free markets, but am curious if there is any evidence that having boom-bust cycles results in greater long term economic growth than would a steady growth scenario?
From a consequentialist view, is economic intervention bad because it prolongs the periods of boom, and bust, rather than affecting the long term trend?
Bob suggested reading about Mises’ idea of capital consumption.
In a 2016 New York Times Magazine article, Adam Davidson says: “the middle class was a driving force in the American economy for about a century, starting in the second half of the 1800s. Its growth created a virtuous circle: The more people moved into the middle, the more money they made and spent, and the richer the country became, which made more room for more people to move into the middle too. “
WSJ Editorial – 7/6/2020
Mr. Biden, seeking the NEA’s endorsement at a virtual assembly on Friday, pledged his fealty to the union, noting that his wife, Jill, is a member. “When we win this election, we’re going to get the support you need and the respect you deserve,” Mr. Biden said. “You don’t just have a partner in the White House, you’ll have an NEA member in the White House. And if I’m not listening, I’m going to be sleeping alone in the Lincoln Bedroom.”
“This is going to be a teacher-oriented Department of Education.”