I think they consider sound money to not provide an easy enough lending environment. If the money goes up in value than there won't be enough incentive to invest, and society will grow too slowly or decay.
They don't see money and prices as information; they see money as wealth and prices as a bad thing, rather than money as economic energy and prices as the information that individuals (neurons) process to coordinate economic activity. Interference in the price of money is like your brain on hard drugs, no longer able to properly respond to the stimuli provided by prices.
When lending is tight, that's simply a sign that the economic brain has determined the market is awash with bad investments and storing energy is of more value than lending. Instead, Keynesians think these economic tumbors should be protected.
But even that assumes that savings isn't the source of all growth & all investment. How do they reach that conclusion? How could starting out in a hole ever be better than earning & saving first? I guess they just can't imagine a world where people actually pay for things...? Do they not get that debt always costs more than buying things outright?
I mean, it probably depends on what level of the monetary hierarchy you are asking this of. The people who set monetary policy don't seem to understand what creating value really means, and the Normie's who finance don't understand where that money comes from. No lie, someone at work thought the dollar was backed by gold last week.
Thread collapsed
I remember in the early 2000s it was still cool to say its important to save money, both as an individual and as a society. I'll never forget another kid at school getting upset at me ~2008, I had said that people who were saving money were stupid and that the economy requires people to spend. I think that's around the time this narrative really changed towards seeing saving as toxic.
Thread collapsed
Thread collapsed