Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This is a question for both bull and bears. I'm not saying it will happen (probably not), but if an economic slowdown were to happen, how would you prefer it's speed?
We know it would be unpleasant like taking off a Band-Aid (adhesive bandage or plaster). Do you pull it off slowly or quickly?
Would you prefer a very rapid and painful crash in the economy over just a couple months and there by more quickly getting on with recovery. Or, a slower more controlled and less painful decline drawn out over many years, say six or more, delaying recovery but far less unpleasant?
Or somewhere inbetween, say, two years to hit bottom.
I think a lot of people would prefer the V-shaped recession and recovery of the 80's. But that happened because it was a deliberate monetarily-induced recession that was recoverable through more monetary adjustment. That would be impossible in the current economy, as well as completely unnecessary. But in broad hypothetical terms, I think that a V would be preferable.
I would prefer a fast fall and get back up. No matter what there will be opportunities. People who were on the sidelines will jump in the fray. Someone will always take a risk.
We'd rather have a V-shaped recession if we absolutely had one.
What's worse, however, is having a sharp and severe fall followed by a painfully slow recovery. That's what we've contended with since 2008.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.