There are very good reasons for those "booms" and "busts". For example, after WWII, "boom" after increased production. During the 70s, "bust" due to inflation and whatever. It's supposed to be that way. It's not going to be "boom" forever.
And it's not like the US economy was some sort of stable magical paradise before the Fed, and before the end of the Gold Standard; vicious depressions before the "Great Depression" were a fairly regular occurence.
WingNutDaily gets sillier by the minute.
Whatever? Can you be more precise?
In the 1970's a new word had to be invented, stagflation, to describe what was going on because the usual scapegoats of full employment, and economic overheating couldn't be blamed. All inflation can be traced back to government policy, anyway. And yes, the Federal Reserve is the cause of cycles in our modern economy, at least since the early 1980's when Paul Volcker went way too far raising rates.
What is a boom anyway? Why can't the economy grow at a steady 5% or more with technological innovation and productivity improvements?
If the Federal Reserve kept the domestic value of the dollar steady using market indicators, and the government emphasized supply side economic incentives our economic growth and increases in standard of living would be unprecedented.
The big downside would be for the federal government, because there would be less of a role for it as more people become wealthy and self sufficient in every economic class.