So his statement wasn't as baseless as I originally interpreted it to be?
I've researched the subject, and as far as I can tell the FED is causing these bubbles, and devaluing our currency. So this persons statement comes across as blatant ignorance.
Your research is correct. The problem is that the vast majority of economists don't know what they're talking about. Mainstream economists are too trapped in their mathematical aggregated models that don't represent reality at all.
The classical economists of the 19th century like JB Say, JS Mill, and David Ricardo had a more-or-less correct theory of the business cycle. This classical explanation of bubbles and depressions culminated in Ludwig von Mises's and FA Hayek's so-called "Austrian" theory of the business cycle in the 1920's and 1930's. Unfortunately, this explanation was swept away by the ideas of Keynes during the 1930s because:
1) The "Austrian" theory is more complicated and thus more difficult to understand.
2) The "Austrian" theory was confined more to the German-speaking world and thus didn't catch wind in the English-speaking world till it was too late.
3) The Keynesian and monetarist explanations of the business cycle and how to cure them better suit the interests of special interest groups and governments than the "Austrian" theory. Thus, it is easier for Keynesian and monetarist economists to find employment than it is for the "Austrians."
4) The economic profession has built up a very large esoteric literature and numerous peer-reviewed journals that require one to be fluent in aggregated mathematical bullshit in order to understand. Because "Austrian" economists deny the feasibility of mathematizing and aggregating economics, they are never published in the mainstream peer-reviewed journals.
5) The Keynesian and monetarist explanation of the business cycle was based on many of the fallacies supported by economists of the time in the early 20th century. So, naturally, these economists became Keynesians and monetarists.
