Is there really anything substantive in arguing over the terminology?
I'm fairly certain you understand the intention behind his statement. Markets ebb and flow in accordance with forces of supply and demand, and the government pumping liquidity into a market falls naturally into the same metaphorical linguistic space as "cash flows". Money is as liquid as water.
If the motive behind the argument is suspicion that characterizing capitalism as natural is painting it in too positive of a light, then I'd figure that capitalism is as Hobbesian as the jungle.
It's natural that customer habits change, and that they move around. Brick and mortar businesses need to move to reach their target audience (i.e. to the suburbs, or to non-downtown locations).
I'm fairly certain you understand the intention behind his statement. Markets ebb and flow in accordance with forces of supply and demand, and the government pumping liquidity into a market falls naturally into the same metaphorical linguistic space as "cash flows". Money is as liquid as water.
If the motive behind the argument is suspicion that characterizing capitalism as natural is painting it in too positive of a light, then I'd figure that capitalism is as Hobbesian as the jungle.