The only reason there is a recession is because people believe there is a recession
Without even bringing up money or inflation:
Oil and other products are in much higher demand compared to the supply than the current system can handle right this moment. You can get less of what you used to get and its obvious for everyone.
This has immediate consequences, but also compounding when slower/lower trade directly effects the ability for people to earn enough to stimulate more trade.
The immediate stuff would cause a recession in itself. Period. Nothing about economic beliefs. ( except if you include a desire to nationalize certain parts of the economy ). The compounding stuff can be mitigated in many ways. Personally I don't think its prudent to mitigate it with consumer debt. i.e. the only way I'm able to interpret your suggestion to not belief in a recession.
The goal is too slow down the aggregate demand in the market - whether or not we believe that it is a recession is irrelevant. Money will get more expensive, companies will be more shrewd on their spend & hiring. Whether the economy contracts and enters a technical recession - doesn't really matter - there are actual physical realities to the world and we can't just will our way into a bull or out of a bear market as nice as that sounds.
Are we watching the same news? The measure to slow down demand is to increase the VAT https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Value-added_tax I don't remember what the Fed/SEC did the last months but it was a measure that had for effect to reduce investment in stocks (would appreciate if you could point out the name of the tax fee) Deincentivizing/diminishing investment in companies result in what? In a reduction not of demand but of production.. Enterprises will downscale their productions and are subject to auto amplifying panic hysteria. The panic sentiment do reduce demand from people (non linearly).
The gap between demand and production, which is an absurd inertia that should have been anticipated during covid, is mild and most importantly is reducing quickly as time passe, unless of course media hysteria induce panic buys.
most importantly, the salient absurdity of the thing is the non-locality of the discourse and of the measures. Only a limited set of companies have a deficient offer/demand ratio, e.g. a company can distribute 1 billion software copies just fine. However the panic mediatic fear of market subinvestment affect even the enterprises that have no issues matching demand, which are in fact the majorities of companies (although yes some key fundamental companies might be limited), moreover the FED/SEC measures affect them equally, and therefore the VAT measure I propose to reduce demand ( which seems incredibly more logical) should be applied locally and proportionately to how much a specific company demand/offer ratio is affected.
either I'm wrong either the system is just doing absurd suboptimalities and I'm betting more on the latter than the former but please share your thoughts.
I am sorry, but your comment is almost incoherent - so my response is more of a broad general definition of what the Federal Reserve is doing to help you understand the macro context a bit more. As the Fed actions are intentionally moving the markets / economy at this point.
Short form - the Federal Reserve increasing the cost of money slows down demand in the entire economy as a function of the cost of money goes up. I am not talking only hard goods - we are talking services, investments etc. They want to slow down the demand side of the economy by increasing the cost of money. It's a blunt tool but it works - if it works to well we enter into a recession which is why they are in the hot seat right now. Very challenging as they have a simple lever where there is a considerable amount of factors (geopolitics, other countries central banks etc).
Hope that helps.
Why are you even discussing VATs? Politically infeasible and not a tool at the disposal of the Fed - its at the disposal of the legislature. Also it doesn't solve the problem that the Fed has - which is reducing money supply / offloading its balance sheet and reducing inflation without tanking the labor market.
Fact is, these last few years have been entirely emotionally and panic driven by old people caring mostly about themselves
Ah... but this goes both ways. That's why we're in a bubble to begin with. Those same base reasons didn't matter as much because prices were way higher than you could really justify without those feedback loops on the positive side.
The only reason you have a family is because you believe you have a family.
The only reason you have a manager is because you believe you have a manager.
The only reason you're in a soccer team is because you believe you're in a soccer team.
The only reason you have a grocery store is because you believe you have a grocery store.
And so on.
Also, as much as I wish we had any sort of platform through idealmedtech.com, our traffic is quite low, mostly from investors and people pitching SaaS products
State of the art treatment these days (at least in artificial pancreas land, where I spend all of my time) is more focused on sensitivity-agnostic treatment; figuring out the insulin sensitivity dynamically rather than trying to control the sensitivity itself (it's much more multifaceted than a few hormones, we're talking hundreds of possible ways it can change).
Also, and I'm sure the authors would acknowledge this, n=32 is enough to demonstrate a possible effect, but not nearly enough to show this effect in the population at large. You usually need n~5000 or more for such effects to be shown generally, though the actual number depends a lot on the drug and what you're trying to treat.
We're conducting our first human study at a world renowned US diabetes center soon, I'll see what our PI thinks of this work. Thanks for sharing.
Stocks ran up A LOT during covid, it couldn't continue forever and it didn't.
People who felt rich because they made a ton of paper profits on the stock market now feel poorer because they have paper losses in the stock market.
That and inflation of course is really taking money out of peoples pockets.
Real world things that effect the way people act have occurred.
I know from first-hand experience that if a team don't believe they have a particular person as their manager, that person is, in fact, not their manager. It's impossible for that person to be their manager.
I also know from first-hand experience that once a group of people no longer believe themselves to be a soccer team, they stop being a soccer team. (Well, actually, this is not about a soccer team but the real example is too fresh and personal to be detailed about so let's pretend it's about a soccer team.)
Similarly, I know from second hand experience that once people don't believe a person is part of a family, that person is, in effect, not part of that family anymore.
I have third hand experience of people not believing a grocery store to be such, and indeed it ceased to be such very quickly and tragically to its former owner.
And so on. I can't think of any social construct that does not require buy-in from the affected parties.
> I can't think of any social construct that does not require buy-in from the affected parties.
"Prisoner", "slave", and "taxpayer" spring to mind (but I repeat myself). These are artifacts of social consensus, enforced by people with stronger-than-usual opinions about the correctness of their evaluations.
Viktor Frankl, Nat Turner, and Warren Buffett, as exceptions, do not disprove the larger point.
I did not mean to say that you, as an individual, can disappear the grocery store by ceasing to believe in it, any less than you can wish away a recession by choosing not to believe in it.
These social constructions (recession, manager, grocery store) are the product of the belief of a majority of the relevant people. One person believing this way or that way changes nothing. Only when most people stop believing do we see change.
Slavery is a great example of a type of social relationship that ends when people stop believing in it.
This goes for the recession just as well as the other examples I gave.