If you want to speak in general terms, the claim is free market economies are much more efficient at allocating resources than centrally planned economies.

I mean, isn’t that what this headline is implying?
“Fed Creates Boom & Bust Cycles and Should Be Abolished”

If we have 14% unemployment, wages being cut, construction disappears, real estate values fell and corporate profits vanish, people will romanticize this central-government led era?

Maybe so, as this is the burgeoning era of the internet and cloud computing. Who knows what will happen in the next 20 years, even if there is widespread unemployment and deflation. For example, substitute ‘internet’ with ‘transportation’ in your 110 year old paragraph:

“As an immediate consequence the world has never seen anything comparable to the results of the recent (development of a worldwide interconnected computing system); never experienced in so short a time such an expansion of all that pertains to what is called “business”; and has never before been able to accomplish so much in the way of production with a given amount of labor in a given time.”

Interesting thought huh?

How about about the panic of 1873 which ***occurred while the US was on the gold standard*** by the way. Does any of this sounds familiar? Please let me know your thoughts:

“In Vienna and Berlin, Paris and London, St. Petersburg and New York, the business cycle had run its course. The failure of the Jay Cooke bank, followed quickly by that of Henry Clews, set off a chain reaction of bank failures and temporarily closed the New York stock market. Factories began to lay off workers as the United States slipped into depression. The effects of the panic were quickly felt in New York, more slowly in Chicago, Virginia City and San Francisco.[15][16][17]

The New York Stock Exchange closed for ten days starting September 20. Of the country’s 364 railroads, 89 went bankrupt. A total of 18,000 businesses failed between 1873 and 1875. Unemployment reached 14% by 1876, during a time which became known as the Long Depression. Construction work lagged, wages were cut, real estate values fell and corporate profits vanished.[18][17]

Recovery from the crash was much quicker in Europe than in America.[19][20] Moreover, German businesses managed to avoid the sort of deep wage cuts that embittered American labor relations at the time.[20] There was a racial component to the economic recovery in Germany and Austria as small investors irrationally blamed the Jews for their losses in the crash”

You might want to have a little skepticism on the Wikepedia article. The period they view as the long depression is more a recogition of the period of general deflation. This is a quote from “Recent Economic Changes” By David Wells, published in 1900, ragarding the economic conditions of the prior quarter century:

“As an immediate consequence the world has never seen anything comparable to the results of the recent system of transportation by land and water; never experienced in so short a time such an expansion of all that pertains to what is called “business”; and has never before been able to accomplish so much in the way of production with a given amount of labor in a given time.”

That does not sound like a 23 year depression to me. It sounds like they need to go back to the drawing board to find a better system of determining the real significance of economic events. Their definitions are wrong.