Austrian business cycle theory says otherwise - crises themselves are largely caused by mal-investment due to inflation and intervention in the economy. Booms and busts will be smaller under a e.g. Bitcoin Standard due to prices actually being useful as signals of value and capital flowing accordingly, and thus won’t require intervention. People will actually have more savings for hard times as they will hold a hard money that retains its value and will be less incentivised to borrow and take on debt. Any “emergency” funding can be done via taxation if necessary which the government will be able to raise if it truly is an emergency. This seems to be Keynesian propaganda rather than a balanced view.
For some context, I'm a political conservative in my private life and I teach this subject for a living. Austrian economics is not accepted science in the field. The bias you're claiming is actually just the presentation of the best the field knows on the subject. In fact, if I shared the Austrian view - which I do not - it would be inappropriate and fraudulent indoctrination to push this in my college sophomore level classes that I teach. For many of my students, who are primarily business majors, I am the final contact point they'll have in the educational system with economics and there is a duty of care to filter and give them the best and most accurate information available. Now that we've cleared that up, let me point out maybe one or two things to refute what you just said. Taxing a society when it is having a downturn does not work as well as printing money. Compare Iceland and Greece during the 2008 financial crisis. Iceland's economy at the time was heavily reliant on banking and all three of their large banks failed. Iceland printed money, had a period of elevated inflation, and then returned to normal as they shifted their focus to become a tourism destination. Greece, since they do not print their own currency, suffered much worse because they had to raise taxes and cut spending during an economic downturn. Another example to support this idea is the United States during the Great Depression. Rather than print money, the money supply in the United States shrank. It damaged the economy and made it much worse than it would have been otherwise. the 2008 crisis in the United States was very similar to The Great depression but we fared much better because of knowing to print money and support the economy during the downturn. Milton Friedman, the famous libertarian economist taught me this through his work. I'm not just giving you talking points, in other words. The best science we have on the subject says that we should focus in the long run on favorable growth environment and when there is recession we should act differently just as you take medicine and eat differently while sick. Keynes was not right about everything, neither was Friedman, but both contributed to the body of knowledge we have today.
You deliver the content very well considering I could follow you without rewinding. keep it up
Austrian business cycle theory says otherwise - crises themselves are largely caused by mal-investment due to inflation and intervention in the economy. Booms and busts will be smaller under a e.g. Bitcoin Standard due to prices actually being useful as signals of value and capital flowing accordingly, and thus won’t require intervention. People will actually have more savings for hard times as they will hold a hard money that retains its value and will be less incentivised to borrow and take on debt. Any “emergency” funding can be done via taxation if necessary which the government will be able to raise if it truly is an emergency. This seems to be Keynesian propaganda rather than a balanced view.
For some context, I'm a political conservative in my private life and I teach this subject for a living. Austrian economics is not accepted science in the field. The bias you're claiming is actually just the presentation of the best the field knows on the subject. In fact, if I shared the Austrian view - which I do not - it would be inappropriate and fraudulent indoctrination to push this in my college sophomore level classes that I teach. For many of my students, who are primarily business majors, I am the final contact point they'll have in the educational system with economics and there is a duty of care to filter and give them the best and most accurate information available. Now that we've cleared that up, let me point out maybe one or two things to refute what you just said. Taxing a society when it is having a downturn does not work as well as printing money. Compare Iceland and Greece during the 2008 financial crisis. Iceland's economy at the time was heavily reliant on banking and all three of their large banks failed. Iceland printed money, had a period of elevated inflation, and then returned to normal as they shifted their focus to become a tourism destination. Greece, since they do not print their own currency, suffered much worse because they had to raise taxes and cut spending during an economic downturn. Another example to support this idea is the United States during the Great Depression. Rather than print money, the money supply in the United States shrank. It damaged the economy and made it much worse than it would have been otherwise. the 2008 crisis in the United States was very similar to The Great depression but we fared much better because of knowing to print money and support the economy during the downturn. Milton Friedman, the famous libertarian economist taught me this through his work. I'm not just giving you talking points, in other words. The best science we have on the subject says that we should focus in the long run on favorable growth environment and when there is recession we should act differently just as you take medicine and eat differently while sick. Keynes was not right about everything, neither was Friedman, but both contributed to the body of knowledge we have today.