I can't see any examples of that history where stocks pricing have suffered less than a few months of decline only and continued to go back up after it.
Off the top of my head 1987 bear market -- during which stocks declined 34% peak to trough -- lasted a little less than 3.5 months before stocks started rising again, never to hit those same lows.
Now you can certainly argue about differences between today and 1987. But again you are stating a belief ("I can't see any examples of that history where stocks pricing have suffered less than a few months of decline only and continued to go back up after it." (see your own quoted text above if you're worried I'm twisting your words, although the emphasis on "any" is mine) which is not backed up by the facts.
1987 was a singular panic event with no underlying issues.. It was only significant in the amount it dropped in a single day if my memory of the history serves me well due to mass panic...didn't gdp growth grow by something like 5% in the USA? I don't put that down as one of the major economic recessions.. Bad example
Note that the response to this was already written in my previous post that you quoted.
"Now you can certainly argue about differences between today and 1987. But again you are stating a belief ("I can't see any examples of that history where stocks pricing have suffered less than a few months of decline only and continued to go back up after it." (see your own quoted text above if you're worried I'm twisting your words, although the emphasis on "any" is mine) which is not backed up by the facts."
Also, you're moving the goal posts (as Waltworks observed). Before you stated "I can't see any examples of that history where stocks pricing have suffered less than a few months of decline only and continued to go back up after it." Nothing about only major recessions.
What criteria make a recession major in your mind and which recessions (whether here in the USA or internationally) qualify?
There is not much proof that the stimulas leads to increased inflation far too many examples across the globe for that.. It is more in theory than a reality..
Creating money new money, not the federal government stimulus itself. The fed has committed to creating something like $4T so far. That may not be enough to create inflation because the velocity of money has declined a LOT (as it frequently does when the economy isn't doing well). Inflation results not only from the size of the money supply but the product of the money supply * the velocity of money. But if the fed has to create
enough new money, yes we will have inflation. I don't know if we'll reach that point or not. But it's well within the realm of possibility. Enough so that I'm more worried about my cash on hand than my stocks (and glad I don't have bunch of my net worth in long term bonds).
Here are some examples of countries where central banks creating additional money to deal with an existing economic crisis produced substantial inflation: Italy (1975) Mexico (1995), Russia (1998), Argentina (2001), Turkey (2014). <-- And I'm not putting any of the fun hyperinflation examples on this list.
It does have to outweigh the clear and obvious though.. I dunno why you keep constantly knit picking quotes selectively to spin a narrative.
Because I'm trying to illustrate to anyone reading this how otherwise reasonable people can arrive at complete confidence in ideas that aren't actually at all certain.
A person says to themself that "stocks never go down for only a few months, it lasts a few years". Then when people point out that's not true, they say to themselves "well those examples don't count because the circumstances are different." But they don't really appreciate how different those two statements are.
They say to themself "amazon isn't making any money" and when it's pointed out that they actually made money "well I bet they'll lose enough money in the future that'll cancel out the money they just made." But they don't really appreciate how different those two statements are.
They say "I cannot imagine any outcome but stocks going down for the next three years" and when other possible outcomes are pointed out "well I think my outcome is still more likely than the one that other person proposed." But they don't really appreciate how different those two statements are.
And all those mistaken data points and ignored uncertainty compound upon each other until a person is convinced that they can see future and are surprised and angry and frustrated that nobody agrees with them that the course of the future is so clearly predictable.
Did turkey and Argentina shutdown their economic outputs? If the answer is no then your comparison doesn't match the current situation
As far as I know, no country anywhere in the world has ever shut down their economy before in the manner we're seeing right now.
So you're right. If that is your threshold for examples that are useful to understanding and predicting our current situation, we have zero precedent and the future could hold anything. We just don't know for sure. And we won't until we live through it.
Which has been my entire point all along.