Someone was explaining the nature of addiction as progressive in stages. The addict usually starts from smoking cigarettes, but soon the cigarette is not strong enough to satisfy the desire. Then he/she changes from smoking cigarettes to smoking marijuana. And sure enough, the marijuana was not strong enough to satisfy the desire. From marijuana to meth, the desire totally controlled the brain.

We know how the addict behaves when the desire is not met; mental illness; violence; crime; the addict doesn't care for the victims or the consequences.

Now, if the addict is an investor who is addicted to investment returns, it may look like a trivial cause but if the whole sector is addicted, hello we're in for a rough ride!

I'm really consistent with informing my targeted audience for clarity of social issues, so that they don't blame themselves or others unnecessarily. It's an unwanted stress due to someone's personal or political agenda.

For example, if the likely Recession is caused by consumer confidence, then surely the writer must state the reason why consumer confidence is lower. But leaving a gap there for the reader to work out falls into the category of misleading and disinformation.

The reader may start to blame the manufacturer for the quality of production, or the economy for that matter and worse owning the social issue as a personal problem.

That is why it make sense to present social issues in a logical science. So it's obviously reasonable that during the period of inflation, the cost of living increases causing consumers to think twice about what they're buying. And purchasing slows down.

Whether that causes consumers to lose confidence in the product I'm not too sure when the cause lies elsewhere.

The trend is traced all the way back in time when the linear monetary economy separates consumers from producers. It left a gap between the rich and poor. This development exacerbated when Climate Change saw the depletion and extinction of resources for manufacture that in turn created a demand.

You see, the gap between the rich and poor becomes a trap in economic stability when spending is necessary for social support. Now, the demand that's not met or short of supply is added social spending set inflation in motion.

And inflation gives rise to a slow in consumer spending. That in turn makes a downward spiral in investment and whether it would lead to a Recession or not.

I have argued that the descend is a gradual development because unemployment is locked between pay bargaining and inflation just as social spending is by the increased cost of living.

The cause is in part due to addiction to investment rewards of the linear system; some people would go as far as labelling it greed and narcissistic, I have referred to it as cognitive dissonance.

So you know, I was right in the last Recession when affordability became meaningless in the reality of what people can afford. That's endorsing the value of the product way above what people earn. And the gap or as it was debt became a commodity.

That means, peoples' misery became a product for investment. Those folks who lost their homes; their jobs and their families were sold on the stock market for a price.

I'm not sure if some spin journalist understands the experience some folks including innocent children are dragged along the highway looking for a safety spot for the night. But they could do better without the unnecessary stress.

You see, the linear monetary economic system does not care for the social consequences. And as long as profit is made to keep investors happy, the consequences clearly stratify society between the rich and poor.

What could happen if investors run out of poor people, but the debt has to be paid? Its an inevitable collapse. But since social spending is necessary, the collapse may be threatening but on hold.

And if pay bargaining could succeed in restoring purchase and debt repayment, the hovering dark cloud of Recession may start to break into silver linings. Otherwise, just don't make an unnecessary noise!

The static cycle of deterioration is a need for crisis management that is proven to be a woman's natural ability in the modern. If you notice, men are engaged in protective measure of market boundaries, a power play of military display. Women on the other hand sought non-violent agreements and resolutions to the crisis naturally.

Now, if an addict is caught between his/her desire and the consequences it's having on his/her family, or community, or society, or the whole world; obviously the normal thing to do is to prioritise his/her decision.

The trouble is, the addict's mind is totally controlled by the desire. Meantime, stages of consequences relating to progressive stages of addiction may follow from burglary for cigarettes to arm burglary for marijuana and to military protection of the meth market.

We are now experiencing the extreme end of addiction and in the case of the monetary linear economy, it could be a Recession.

Mix interests have proposed various resolves; a political proposal aims at an armed squad to counter the addicts and their soldiers. Another proposal which is in place somewhere, is a therapeutic way of weaning the addict out of his/her desires to resume normal life. Can you distinguish the gender difference in the above approaches?

Right now, we need something to happen straight away as we endure the stress of a looming Recession.


Dont drop your guard, covid-19 is hanging around