Austrians stuck on the credit boom/bust

Steven Horwitz for example

Of course the downturn begins when enough of the projects undertaken in the boom are finally seen to be unprofitable based on real resource scarcities, which I suppose one could call "recalculation." However, the more common Austrian point (and Arnold Kling's as well) is that the recovery process itself is where the substantial recalculation must take place.

I don't get it. Austrians would have credit cycle drive just about everything, including innovation, it is almost a necessity to have credit cycles in their theory. The implication seems to be that we over invest due to central bank errors, then we innovate out of the mis-allocation of resources. They rarely mention any other causes of recessions. How did humans innovate before we had central bankers? Is the boom bust just part of the innovation cycle? Did the central bankers cause the transformation from horse and buggy to automobile, because certainly that transformation caused a downturn.

The better plausibility is that we over value the past when faced with a new future. The anxiety of future innovation seeps in and causes the central banking to go haywire.  We likely accumulated all this government debt by bailing out losers in the face of innovation, that is, innovation causes unsustainable bailouts.