Quote from Ghost of Cutten:
You are talking about people who do not believe in creative destruction and markets clearing. However, since they are political actors, this is understandable - arguing in favour of a recession, job losses, and bankruptcies tends not to go down too well.
What is interesting is that she sees short-term economic weakness as something that both can, and should be avoided. The idea that economic weakness might be a necessary and beneficial process in order to push people to reallocate capital from shitty enterprises to good ones seems to be something she doesn't even contemplate.
The goal of economic action is not to avoid temporary economic weakness, it is to allocate resources as efficiently as possible. Losses, bankruptcy, and destruction are essential signals from the market to reallocate radically.
The original role postulated for central banks was to avoid liquidity panics i.e. where the market gets far more negative (for a short while) than the reality justifies. I.e. people having bank runs because of pure fear, rather than because the bank in question is actually balance-sheet insolvent. This seems like a legitimate policy, it's like buying near the lows of a market capitulation, basically. But somewhere along the line, central banking theory expanded from staving off banking panics by providing temporary liquidity, to trying to stave off any kind of economic contraction at all by debasing the currency.