The question isn't whether we can endure wild boom and bust cycles. It's what benefits we get out of them, which, historically, has been "sociopaths get rich" and "materialism destabilizes society." It's not worth it.
The bust is worth it. This is how the market ensures people who make bad decisions get what they deserve. It's equitable is what it is. Without the bust (government interference) our society allocates resources towards inefficient and less productive ends.
People can make bad decisions without being allowed to speculate and financialize. Glass-Steagal and other restrictions on investment banking were completely justified.
The question isn't whether we can endure wild boom and bust cycles. It's what benefits we get out of them, which, historically, has been "sociopaths get rich" and "materialism destabilizes society." It's not worth it.
The government interference is not worth it and dramatically harms our advancement.
The "bust" part of the cycle isn't worth it either. That's my point.
The bust is worth it. This is how the market ensures people who make bad decisions get what they deserve. It's equitable is what it is. Without the bust (government interference) our society allocates resources towards inefficient and less productive ends.
People can make bad decisions without being allowed to speculate and financialize. Glass-Steagal and other restrictions on investment banking were completely justified.