You're literally advocating for the boom-bust cycle...
I'm not quite sure why you think I'm advocating for the boom-bust cycle theory. I didn't mention it or any part of it at all. Was it because I mentioned bubbles? Most if not all mainstream economists and economic theories certainly accept the existence of bubbles; they're definitely not exclusive to the boom-bust cycle theory. In fact, economists who denied the existence of the housing bubble such as Alan Greenspan were proven hugely wrong; and economists who spotted the housing bubble early on such as Dean Baker were proven hugely right. Anyway, I strongly disagree with the boom-bust cycle theory. On the contrary, I agree with Keynesian theories such as the financial instability hypothesis and the debt deflation theory.
The boom-bust theory's proponents argue for inflation and low interest rates. I thought these dangers might be obvious to someone who speaks as grandiloquent words as you do. Once again, I dare say that bimetallism could very well crush economic wildfire theory - that recessions clear the ground, so to speak, for new life. Yet it seems that once again, radical Keynesians who reject every economic proposal and theory of Milton Friedman and Alan Greenspan, two of the greatest economists in their lifetimes, will crush the economy. Please at least tell me you wouldn't reject the opinions of Glenn Hubbard? No, I suppose that's too much to ask. Krugman has allowed his role as an economist to be politicized, and so poisoned minds with false economic understandings. There is only one thing worse than lack of knowledge, than ignorance - and that is the holding of false knowledge and false confidence.
