If they are trying to cover up a crash, it'll be a typical example of why centralised control fails so hard at economics. A crash isn't like a storm or something where a new force appears; it is a recognition that past decisions were not as effective as people at the time thought. Trying to fight a crash just keeps people doing destructive work for longer instead of moving on and finding some other activity.
The crash wasn't really about economics, it was more about people abusing financial instruments for short term gains. There would need to be some sort of meta-field that combines economics, finance, banking, politics, etc to properly analyze the cause/effect and predict this.
The crash is not coming, it's just returning. The original one was never over. Its effects were just postponed by pouring money in it (aka bailouts and buy-outs).
The real reasons - ultra high debt of all players, errors in the system, for-profit players not controllable by the three political branches - were not remedied, in fact they might have been even worsened (the debt increased because of the bailouts).
Unnacountable oligarchs run the central bank system and engineer crashes as a means of buying up assets for pennies on the dollar, so yes, another is inevitable, its just a matter of when and what all they want with this one (forced SDR coins, national central bank coins, etc to create a more trackable/controllable society, et al)
If you have the means there are ways to ride the oligarchic coat-tails so to speak, usually buy buying the assets up right after the initial pops.
As far as I can tell, the political class decided that no cost was too high to avoid being the one left standing when the music stops, after the '08 crash. So we'll just inflate until someone gets unlucky and is the one stuck with the blame for a massive crash rather than 2-3 smaller recessions inconveniencing some other politicians, who are actually the ones to blame for the whole situation. [EDIT] actually, arguably, the '08 crash was already an in-the-works recession delayed and made worse by exactly this kind of thing.
Another possibility is that someone realized something really awful, like that the global economy had shifted such that anything like the "asian contagion" crash (no, nothing to do with COVID[0]) can't be contained next time, so they're desperately trying to keep the plates spinning until they can figure something out, because they expect the next major crash will be a true global depression and don't know how to stop/mitigate it if it's triggered.
I obviously don’t know where the bottom is but I do see multiple simultaneous contributing problems (war -> food problems; supply and transport problems exacerbated by Covid; artificially (“profiteering”) high prices; a tardy (but firm) response from the fed — though it is the nature of such responses is that they have to be tardy).
Ironically the multiple causes is a positive sign: they can start to turn upwards independently. While the 2008 crash was a secular failure of a singular asset class, or perhaps more correctly two coupled asset classes (mortgages and CDOs). That was hard to work it’s way out of the system, though unorthodox actual by the fed and other central banks helped cushion the shock…at a cost.
So for example the crypto collapse is high profile but minor, even trivial, in the scheme of things.
Quite true. Arguably though, the programs are part of the overall short/medium term "solution" for the crash. Yet nobody seems concerned that the same thing could happen again.
Macro-economically, a market crash is a signal that investors don't trust public companies to be revenue generating engines in the future. Small market corrections occur when other related assets or systems readjust, like housing markets or trade regulations. If anyone knows when or why the next crash is coming, they could make millions on that knowledge. Anything else is most likely just blindly throwing darts - someone will turn out to be correct but analyzing their reasons for the crash will be a classic case of survivorship bias. I think the market is relatively efficient in this aspect.
Because we already have systems that are already superior and much more stable, we don't have to endure any artificial shocks due to inherent instabilities in the system (caused in large due to interest and other immoral practices).
The 2008 crash was just one manifestation of what happens when the system is taken to its logical conclusion, it all comes crumbling down eventually because it is not sustainable. We saw it these past two weeks with GME, however, the big players stepped in to put a stop to it because they can't allow the market to play by their own rules (because they're unstable).
I have no issues with businesses going under because they can't compete, that's how a free market operates. I have issues with lending money with interest and other predatory practices, such as shorting, because they destroy economies and/or exploit one class, causing the lender to gain an unfair and immoral advantage simply because he has money.
Gain wealth, but do it morally and without exploiting others. I'm all for that.
Compared to other crashes where there seemed to be an underlying economic issue - this one feels like it will bounce back quickly at some point in my amateur opinion. Am tempted by some 2022 SPY leaps for this reason.
> "growth" (i.e. inflation) before the inevitable crash
What you need to know is this: Financial crashes are an eternal cycle, they will never go away. Unless there is fundamental societal change.
Here's why: Financial crashes are business to a couple of extremely powerful/rich people. After every crash, assets are undervalued. Rich people have the financial cushion to not be impacted in the slightest way by such crashes. Which means they are in a position to purchase these undervalued assets from poorer people. The rich-poor imbalance grows further, as these undervalued assets regain their "real" value. That's the reason why these crashes are manufactured. Which means a couple of powerful/rich people will continually steer society in this direction, for example by removing laws that were put in place as safeguards.
Edit: And no, this is not conspiracy, it's pure economics.
So if that's "capitalism" working that it needed a second one, I actually don't like "capitalism" very much.
reply