Recessions happen naturally as part of the business cycle, but are exacerbated by risky practices at major financial institutions that take on insanely leveraged bets in order to churn out a tiny profit that when summed up, becomes a huge profit.
The problem is that when average people go to political representatives to push for regulation of the markets, they are drowned out by corporate lobbyists who fill reps' pockets and fill the airwaves talking about and "class envy" and "socialist takeover".
Where did this idea of recessions being required come from? Business cycle is a reflection of human psychology. It's possible for that to change.
If the price os something goes too high, it is a good thing that it goes down to levels in which they are affordable again for those that need it for living on them and not for speculating.
It's also possible that the data is implying it. Not everything needs to be a conspiracy.
If you are having a bad time already, you would be hoping for a some turnaround moment to see if it changes anything.
Basically its the It will pass frustration/joy applied to scenarios. If you are having a good time now, being told It will pass will likely sadden you. If you are having a bad time, being told It will pass will cheer you up.
No narrative last forever. The globalist narrative for instance is now finding it's limited.
Personal comment: I can relate very much to this, but I also find that building those complex narratives - or even finding them - is incredibly difficult. I don't know how much this difficulty is related to the new media landscape (especially social media), but the net effect is that, apparently, only simple solutions (which will never work) seem to be gaining steam.
It's hard to build up to complex solutions when we (society, broadly defined) seem unable to agree on the basic facts.
I don't know for sure if the past was better or worse when it came to reporting the truth. Given the limited number of news outlets, radio stations and tv stations historically, there were at least a limited set of reporting to agree on (independent of the accuracy of that reporting). This was probably very helpful in enabling more complex solutions.
Every complex solution will add an additional layer of complexity on top of everything, thereby making the problem worse. If society, as a whole, becomes so complex that the processes that keep it rolling are no longer transparent, then we'd end up in a situation where we can't see the forest for the trees.
The list of objective facts regarding any major issue is short. The list of subjective facts is infinite. When anyone can blast the world with their subjective facts, the objective facts are lost in the noise.
It's not one, though.
I just read "The end of Alchemy" which goes through the history of our financial system and how it came to be and it doesn't sound like we historically were any better off. So not sure exactly what they are referring to with regards to these narratives.
Furthermore, I wouldn't agree that complex solutions are needed for complex problems unless we talk technically.
A big part of the issues we are having is that the policies we do have are so complex that they can be used by those who have enough money to speculate and interpret against the intent of the laws.
If anything we need simple rules and a system of ongoing interpretation on top which ensures that interpretations the law stay within the spirit of the law.
Also it wasn't a long read at all :)
much worse periods
Do pay attention to that.
Whilst I agree, one thing that the author doesn't address is that people were very worried after the collapse of the market (Reconstruction), after WWII (the spread of communism, McCarthysim), and other such calamities.
The difference betwixt those times and now is fundamentality societally-based and the nature of the calamity.
Almost no one works at a company for twenty years, anymore; which means reliance on things like 401ks (in the states). When the crash hit in 2008, it wiped a large portion (if not almost all) of their life's savings. So, for people to be especially worried going forward isn't without merit.
The problem is that the complex solutions, these days, haven't even considered, much less addressed, the working class heroes.
I cannt blame people, one bit, for being more prone to being receptive to the narratives of another economic collapse; especially, if you've ascribed your personal losses to not listening the first go-round.
Of course, most countries came up with differing solutions for the crash, and that's one thing to consider: Even though the impact was global, the response was more local (country versus world). Iceland, for example, jailed the bankers. The states bailed them out.
I don't have an answer and I don't even presume to begin to have a notion of what to do; however, telling people that they should just wait for a complex solution isn't going to go very far, when the solutions proferred so far haven't positively affected them in the slightest.
(Apologies for the rant.)
 - https://www.huffingtonpost.com/stefan-simanowitz/iceland-has...
 - https://www.forbes.com/sites/mikecollins/2015/07/14/the-big-...
only if they panic sold. if they held for a few more years, they would have recovered most, if not all of their losses.
Edit: Ah, sneak edit. Carry on.
This kind of catastrophist thinking is exactly the wrong way to think about things.
Yes it has conequences some negative and some positive. The world will go on.
1991: "Russia needn't worry, lots of countries have market economies and do just fine."
As though the structure of the British economy and trade activity hasn't been shaped by decades of EU membership.
Things won't be as they were in 90s Russia, but living standards will drop once exports are priced with WTO tariffs, and ditto for imports.
I am unconvinced it's going to be a major issue and I have yet to see any evidence of the contrary.
This is the wrong way of thinking about things. Yes, other countries manage to be outside the EU, and do fine (albeit, at least in Europe, most of those doing fine have close links to the EU). But, those countries don't start from a position of being tightly integrated into the European economic system.
I grew up in Denmark who also aren't fully members of the EU either. Every time we voted it was claimed to be the end of the world. It turned out to be just fine in fact mostly better than had we joined.
So I am pretty immune to these the sky is falling claims. The UK is an important country in the world, they will do just fine.
False since 1973. http://um.dk/en/foreign-policy/denmark-in-the-eu/
Given that it's not unreasonable to see Denmark as an "active" but not "full" EU member.
If we were full members we would have the EURO and no derivations.
The fact that the UK has kept their own currency is itself making it less of a headache to untangle from the EU.
True, but in the immediate the UK seems to be in a somewhat alarming position. None of these other countries have ever needed to re-organize over half of their food supply chain overnight.
Brexit is pretty much an "immediate change". That makes a huge difference.
Not with the same configuration. And not with the players remaining in the same positions they are.
The sun always rises tomorrow, just not on the same world that was yesterday.
Unless applied to technological advancement, this statement is usually false. Human behavior is astonishingly repetitive.