From the Functional Finance perspective, government formulated economic policy within a capitalist, free market system is, and has a strong historical record, as the most effective route to sustainably manage the economic cycle.  

However, the dominant narrative for the last 30 years has fostered the belief, lead by the lords of finance, that government policy was a burden, a drag on the economy. Only monetary policy levers, coordinated by central banks were require to properly manage the economy. They were the experts after all in "managing" money.

Below from Bloomberg:
 Larry Fink, CEO at BlackRock-a large investment firm, talks about how fiscal policy can drive a continuing market rally, damage done by dependence on monetary policy, and the benefit that fiscal stimulus would provide to banks.
​

From Alexander Hamilton to Abraham Lincoln, Eisenhower to JFK our greatest leaders knew the central role government fulfilled along the path to prosperity.

In Hamilton’s Debt, by Paul Krugman, NY Times:

The Treasury Department picked an interesting moment to announce a revision in its plans to change the faces on America’s money. Plans to boot Alexander Hamilton off the $10 bill in favor of a woman have been shelved. Instead, Harriet Tubman ... will move onto the face of the $20 bill. ...
But let me leave the $20 bill alone and talk about how glad I am to see Hamilton retain his well-deserved honor. ... Hamilton proposed that the federal government assume and honor all of the debts individual states had run up during the Revolutionary War, imposing new tariffs on imported goods to raise the needed revenue. ...
But why did Hamilton want to take on those state debts? Partly to establish a national reputation as a reliable borrower, so that funds could be raised cheaply in the future. Partly, also, to give wealthy, influential investors a stake in the new federal government, thereby creating a powerful pro-federal constituency.
Beyond that, however, Hamilton argued that the existence of a significant, indeed fairly large national debt would be good for business. Why? Because ... bonds issued by the U.S. government would provide a safe, easily traded asset that the private sector could use as a store of value, as collateral for deals, and in general as a lubricant for business activity. As a result, the debt would become a “national blessing,” making the economy more productive.
This argument anticipates ... one of the hottest ideas in modern macroeconomics: the notion that we are suffering from a global “safe asset shortage.”...
As a result, investors have been bidding up the prices of government debt, leading to incredibly low interest rates. But it would be better for almost everyone, the story goes, if governments were to issue more debt, investing the proceeds in much-needed infrastructure even while providing the private sector with the collateral it needs to function. ...
Unfortunately, policy makers won’t do the right thing, largely because they keep listening to fiscal scolds — people who insist that public debt is a terrible thing even when borrowing costs almost nothing. ... Alexander Hamilton knew better.
Unfortunately, Hamilton isn’t around to help counter foolish debt phobia. But maybe reminding policy makers of his wisdom is one way to chip away at the wall of folly that still constrains policy. And having his face out there every time someone pulls out a ten can’t hurt, either.

The Wall Street Journal weighs in the latest in financial engineering-negative interest rates. They don't seem to be working....

In this perpetual election season, we hear a lot of politicians, candidates and pundits speak abstractly about the faults of this policy or department without naming names or policy specifics.

In part this can be explained by the speakers ultimately poorly informed or ideologically conceived position turned false talking point. But if you can't properly name the Department you're railing against, as Donald Trump did this week and Rick Perry did hilariously as well, odds are you really don't know why it exists or the benefits for the public.

Senator Elizabeth Warren questioning  Leonard Chanin at Banking Hearing on Consumer Finance Regulations doesn't suffer from this problem. And it shows brilliantly as she effectively discredits his expert testimony before the panel.

Enjoy!