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.