“Natural”? There’s hardly anything natural about markets let alone the economy unless you believe in god’s hand, of course.

Is there really anything substantive in arguing over the terminology?

I'm fairly certain you understand the intention behind his statement. Markets ebb and flow in accordance with forces of supply and demand, and the government pumping liquidity into a market falls naturally into the same metaphorical linguistic space as "cash flows". Money is as liquid as water.

If the motive behind the argument is suspicion that characterizing capitalism as natural is painting it in too positive of a light, then I'd figure that capitalism is as Hobbesian as the jungle.

It's natural that customer habits change, and that they move around. Brick and mortar businesses need to move to reach their target audience (i.e. to the suburbs, or to non-downtown locations).

When you say "let the natural cycles take hold," do you mean in the way Western governments used to before the Great Depression, say during the 19th and early 20th centuries? Do you realize how horrific the panics of 1818-19, 1825, 1837, 1847, 1857, 1866, 1869, 1873, 1884, 1893, 1896, 1907, 1914 were, in both the US and Europe? And after all those horrific panics, the old systems led to the Great Depression, 1929-1939. Is that what you mean?

To the extent economists today recommend propping things up, it's only because they believe the alternatives are much worse. Judging by the historical record, I'd say they're right to focus on minimizing damage, akin to doctors with their Hippocratic oath.

Economic engineering to save an economy we want seems good.

Economic engineering to save an economy aligned against our interests doesn't as much.

And you can apply some of that engineering toward easing the transition to a more aligned economy.

Okay but they gambled and lost - why shouldn’t they face the consequences? I’ve had to every time it’s happened to me, why should it be different for them?