It really all depends on how you define “growth”. What Mises is talking about when he says “boom” is what he describes there in the passage…basically that “prices advance and business activities expand”. This is not the same as economic growth. You will have those who will argue that growth occurs when GDP increases or something like that.
They’ll try to argue “oh yeah, well how do you measure economic growth then?” But of course, if all you have to do to create “economic growth” is make GDP increase, there’s no reason growth shouldn’t be happening all the time. 140 Trillion dollars could be created and spent literally in seconds and our $14 Trillion GDP would increase tenfold. WHY THE HELL DON’T WE DO THAT? What’s all the waiting for? GDP is meaningless.
Generally when people talk about “economic growth” they are referring to an increase in the supply of goods and services to a point at which more people can obtain more things they desire at a lower cost. They’re talking about an improvement in the overall standard of living of individuals in the society. They’re talking about an increase in overall wealth. The number of units of currency in circulation tells us absolutely nothing about that. And certainly just increasing that number doesn’t do anything to improve those things.
So to get to your question, no actual “economic growth” as defined above does not have the same affect as an increase in the money supply…as, namely, it doesn’t really increase the money supply. Suppose gold and silver are universally used as money and no fiduciary media are used. As economic growth occurs, the supply of virtually all commodities increases…this bringing prices down…meaning everyone is wealthier. Sure, as technology advances and prices keep dropping (meaning each gold or silver coin becomes more valuable…that is, they increase in purchasing power…meaning they buy more stuff) it will pay people to mine more gold and silver, thus ultimately increasing the supply.
But for one thing, this doesn’t come at a cost. It takes real resources to mine those metals. It’s not easy. And it’s not quick. This means (1) the supply can’t increase very quickly, and (2) each new bit of gold or silver that is in circulation represents actual economic resources. This is contrasted with a $100 bill. Everyone knows there isn’t $100 worth of ink and paper in that bill. It’s just a representation. The problem is, it doesn’t “represent” anything other than “faith and credit”. There aren’t any resources to back it, because it didn’t really take any resources to bring it into existence.
It’s just like I told you with the island economy analogy.
So the bottom line answer to your question is, no, the artificial boom doesn’t apply to a normal growing economy because for one thing, a normal growing economy doesn’t grow the money supply, it grows the supply of everything else (in the broader sense). The artificial boom economy does exactly the opposite. That’s why it’s called artificial…because there isn’t any real growth there…it just appears to be. It’s not the economy of resources that has grown…only the money supply that is supposed to represent those resources.
That’s why printing money out of thin air throws everything off…because it fools the market into behaving as if there are more resources available than there really are.
A few more that might help:
Malinvestment, Not Overinvestment, Causes Booms
(If you want more on this one, there’s this too.)
Mises on malinvestment (from Epistemological Problems of Economics)
Just for archive’s sake, a couple of threads. (Might not be really helpful, but still, on topic)