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 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.
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.