They generally respond to that sort of complaint by pointing out that timing can't be determined by theory alone, but I agree with you.

There's a somewhat technical point that I think many of them miss that leads to excessively dour predictions. In the Austrian framework (and really in all modern economic thought), costs are defined as the next best alternative. That means losses are the difference between what actually happened and what could have happened.

Austrians are great at pointing out where policy is leading to losses, but there's an implication that losses will mean that the economy will shrink and that's a non-sequitur. As long as losses are less than new economic production, the economy will continue growing.