>>16272112
agree with the first part of that but this is really nothing (yet)-all pretty orderly as the 'bots make sure the circuit breaers don't get tripped ans then the masses really start to notice.
>that it made the soft landing possible.
this is whre I disagree-they never fixed anything from the 2008 event and you now have $158T in OTC derivatives not to mention all the off bookd stuff so we're probably looking at a few Quadrillion WW and there is gong to be to nothing soft about that.
Wall St has this problem of not allowing the consequences of an already achieved result so it's picking winners/losers by decree.
You don't want a soft landing because that will keep this shitty, over-leveraged system intact
It needs to die and the only way is an implosion and let the pieces fall where they may-but that also doesn't mean it drops too
If it drops they just rebuy it and we are going to be here much longer.
It can be blown up-to the upside as well sp keep taht in mind
But a soft-landing keeps this system intact
Not what our soceity needs
It needs to get shitty so it is wiped clean and that means people are going to get hurt-I don't want that as much as the next rationale person but it needs to habben