You'll live through many recessions in your lifetime regardless. The implication that regulators can/should prevent all recessions is suspect to me.

In fact, the problem is that they keep bailing us out of recessions, which will eventually lead to a collapse and possibly a depression.

2019: That bond bailout you didn't hear about

2020: COVID bailout

2022: Various credit/liquidity facilities and the slow-walked rate hikes

2023: Bank bailouts

I dunno what happens this time. So many cards have been played out and a lot of entities seem to be white-knuckling it.

The boom-and-bust cycle is a natural consequence of running an economy on debt: margin leads to speculation which leads to overheating, and then it has to cool off. It is entirely possible to guarantee the public's welfare during busts; you just have to sacrifice not having a ceiling on earnings/wealth.

If we are lucky, all of this will not matter if we reach post scarcity.

Would be even really really good if we would start breaking through barriers regarding state spending and allowing more to do so in a way that inflation is not affected.

Like allowing every state on the planet to 'spend' money on certain things like renewable or teachers or care workers.

Lucky enough we don't live in a free market. US America perhaps more than germany, non the less there are plenty of regulations to protect consumers.

If a recession was started because someone else is taking your retirement fonds and putting them in companies overvaluated to move money from retirement fonds to random other people, and this is closer to gambling than investment, regulators should step in.

Each step of this is a leap:

> someone else is taking your retirement fond

> and putting them in companies overvaluated

> to move money from retirement fonds to random other people,

> and this is closer to gambling than investment

Define "leap." Do you mean

1) "I vaguely disapprove of this framing for reasons I choose not to explain?" Or do you mean,

2) "Each step violates any reasonable duty, and wouldn't be taken in a world that punished people for taking wild risks with the money of retirees, or in a world that expected the "risk" that people took when investing in stocks to actually be "risky" instead of ultimately backstopped by the taxpayers?"

I suspect 1.

[delayed]

How much control do you have with companies which are managing some 401k (USA) or similiar things in other countries?

If they blindly invest in random companies even with P/Es in 3 digits, thats overvaluated.

The move happens because your retirement is getting less in a crash, but that money was moved around because you bought shares and someone else sold them.

What will be the margin? if its a healthy one, its not gambling its investment. If its good, it becomes gambling.

The regulator in The Big Short is still hilarious. Blinded because she had gone to an eye doctor. What a metaphor.

Technically she wasn’t a regulator - I believe she was at one of the ratings agencies. In their defense, it looks like Anthropic’s IPO is going to receive a junk rating.

I'm not sure I'd call her a regulator... she worked at the one of the ratings agencies.

tulips generally are perennial plants and re-grow every year. we will have bubbles and bursts as long as this is true

If you have only lived through one you are at most 17 years old, since otherwise you'd have lived through the recession of 2007-2009 and the Covid one of 2020. Earlier there was one in 2001 and in 1990/91, 81/82, 80, 73-75, 69/70, 60/61, 58, 53, 49 and 45.

Thirteen since WWII or roughly two per decade.