Then you need to ask questions and request input…not profess assessments and spread what amounts to basically false information with such a tone of assuredness and expertise.
I have to agree that FRB is the most apt description of what causes bubbles. An even more succint definition would be inflationary credit, but that is a slight nit-pic. The money supply can be increased without a bubble, the example of Friedmans helicopters gives a decent description. If the supply of money was instantly increased, i.e. everyones accounts instantly doubled, then no bubble would occur. Prices would generally rise up to meet the new market clearing price.
The key feature of inflationary credit through FRB is that it slowly distributes the newly created money to certain individuals who able to bid up prices before the market can adjust. This disallocation and distortion of prices is what causes the bubbles, as prices get artificially bid up and away from productive sectors.
Fractional Reserve Lending is the cause of all bubbles.
Central Banks were born to ensure the survival of FRL and to expand bubbles.
IF you kill FRL you would have effectively abolished Central Banks.
The higher the reserve requirement, the lower the bubble capacity of the system.
And a bubble can occur without FracRB. I guess there goes that theory.
We should probably define terms, because a bubble and a business cycle are two different things that I think people are conflating.
Technically a bubble can occur without any increase in the supply of money or credit, people can make mistakes and over speculate on a cerain asset or commodity. An isolated bubble can occur in any single product from pure human error. But for a true busniess cycle to occur in which mutiple sectors of the economy, higher order goods, and capital goods are malinvested simultaniously, inflationary credit is crucial.
The tulipmania story is interesting and yes it does show an instance were FRB wasn’t the cause, but it is simply a matter of how and not why new money bid up prices.