In the early 20th century Yellowstone park had a problem with with wildfires. The thinking at the time was that the fires were bad and had to be stopped as soon as possible. It made people feel good, disasters were averted, only small portions of the forest burned. However, this policy led to the accumulation of fuel: fallen trees, pine needles, dead grass, and leaves. Due to this excess fuel, fires became more dangerous and harder to stop. After a few of these fires, when the forest was thought destroyed to never return to its former glory, something peculiar happened; new trees began to grow and thrive in the ash. What was discovered was that the pine cones from the long pole pines which make up most of the forest won't open and seed until they are heated by fire. It was the very act of destruction which caused growth and lessened the fuel available for new fires, making them less dangerous. Taking this into consideration, the forest service started doing "controlled burns", trying to take this force of fire and make it bend to their will, which although leading to less fires it doesn't always (or usually) work the way they think it will.
Keynesian economics is like the early 20th century fire control in Yellowstone and the controlled burns of today; people trying to impose themselves onto a natural cycle they don't fully understand, leading to devastating consequences and disrupting the natural cycles.
When the market drops, we need to let it burn, clean out all the dead wood and make room for new growth. If we do that, disasters will be less frequent and smaller in scale. It may seem counterintuitive to let fires burn, but sometimes it needs to happen.
And now a treat for reading this much:
