I think Daniel Kuehn mistakes Evan Soltas's point. Soltas is arguing not against the fundamentalist Austrians and their claims that the depression is caused by previous malinvestment in the boom. Soltas is arguing against the Martin Feldstein's who claim that interest rates need to be high during the bust in order to guard against additional malinvestments committed then.Grasping Reality
Here is something I have noticed of late in the ongoing debates on austerity: some Austrians argue that fiscal contraction can directly lead to GDP growth and recovery (a line taken by some neoclassical economists with their pro-growth austerity fables), and they argue that, if only governments would do nothing and pursue austerity, strong recoveries would ensue. In the process, these Austrians seem to deny that recession or depression is the result of fiscal contraction.Read the rest at Social Democracy for the 21st Century
The idea is blatantly contradicted by their own business cycle theory, which holds that prolongation of a recession or depression to its “natural” end, and purging malinvestments in the process, is a necessary consequence of the “do nothing” response itself (called “liquidationism”). Therefore it is bizarre and stupid in the extreme for any Austrian adherent of the Hayekian business cycle theory to argue that austerity or a “do nothing” policy will lead directly to growth.
Before he renounced liquidationism, Hayek inPrices and Production explained exactly why nothing must be done during a credit-caused recession, and why the economy and society must suffer the consequences:
