[mamon]

The problem with that approach is that market cycles serve important purpose: they faciliate best allocation of our resources by ensuring that inefficient companies will go bankrupt. Smoothing those cycles out enables poorly managed companies to stay in business for way too long. Then, since there's a limit to a market manipulation that central banks can do we end up with one huge crisis, like Great Depression, or 2008 housing buble, instead of series of small ones.

[ufo]

This austrian-style economic thinking about market cycles lines up with bitcoin ideology but is far from being accepted in mainstream economcs. It is flimsy pseudoscience.

[TangoTrotFox]

Appeals to authority are generally not great, but this is made even more bizarre given that our current economic systems seem to be teetering on a precipice. Think about how truly desperate we are when we need to resort to quantitative easing, zero interest rates, and even flirting with negative interest rates - just to desperately try to maintain the status quo.

This doesn't mean any alternative is better, but rather that trying to refute alternatives by appeals to authority is an even worse idea than it usually is. And it's usually already an awful idea!

[frockington]

Europe did even more than flirt with negative interest rates and yesterdays reports proved the negative outcome of that experiment

[s73v3r_]

Plenty of poorly managed companies are still able to stay in business despite economic downturns because they have inertia.

Not to mention that, businesses going under means people without jobs. Lots of businesses going under at the same time means lots of people without jobs, and fewer companies able to take them on. That's a bad thing, no matter how you slice it.

[api]

Inefficient and poorly run things die in down cycles but so do new things and innovative things. Efforts to innovate must usually burn money for a long time and are more vulnerable to downturns since in downturns people become more conservative.