Monetary injections do not automatically and necessarily yield inter-temporal disequilibrium and discoordination (i.e., an accumulation of malinvestment). Thus, it logically follows that there is no 1-1 direct relationship between changes in the “TMS” and business cycle volatility. This is due to the fact that monetary injections become inflationary (and therefore arbitrarily reduce the market rate of interest below the natural rate) only when expansions in the supply of money > the demand for money.
Additionally, the rate of monetary growth may fall, but may be sufficient to sustain the malformed capital structure and/or perpetuate the accumulation of malinvestment (disinflation as opposed to deflation). The key variable is not changes in the money supply but rather the position of the market of interest with respect to the natural rate (the two variables are obviously related, but again, there is no direct and proportional relationship between them).
Also, we have to take into consideration the methods used to counteract recessions. It is true that inflationary (expansionary) monetary policy may delay the necessary correction for an extended period of time (yielding “milder recessions”), but only to continue the accumulation of malinvestment, leading to a much more profound correction somewhere in the future.
This is simply incorrect. The period you’re referring to is far more stable than the one that came before it. It is true that this current recession is quite dramatic, but the 60’s and 70s are characterized by seemingly perpetual downturns, double-digit rates of inflation and unemployment, etc.