Resisting a bear market sounds like a good thing. Signals are bearish but, with a dollar stronger than it has been in a long time, there is every incentive to chase yield.
Since “chasing yield” and the resulting support has a demand attribution, we can honestly say that the risk (the fully assumed risk of probable loss–the probability being a function of when it will happen and not necessarily why) is determined by the rule of a collective action, empirically determined by the numbers.
On demand, the majority naturally rules, but not without resistance. The greater number has legitimate coercive power (ECV-symmetry).
What is resisting a bear market (the bid) is what Senator Bernie Sanders is talking about.
Resisting a bear market is good, but what is its derivative value?
Accumulating the bid at the top exercises the power of majority rule (which has a political risk dimension), consolidating the capacity to make demands (with rewards and deprivations) into the hands of an elite authority. Simply referred to in economics as “dollar votes,” the political risk is being reduced to a purely economic dimension, and that would be good if income was equally distributed. Since it is not, there is an accumulation of political risk that draws big crowds to naturally resist the accumulation and distribute the risk.
This natural, risk ontology is considered by conservatives to be a moral hazard, however, because it naturally shares power, which they consider to be rule by the mob. It is the obligation of elite authority to then structure the mob into a productive machine, and according to the Elite School, for example, it naturally reflects the self-image of the elite, ruling class.
Naturally, then, we can fully expect the system to resist the tendency for a declining rate of profit, intending to resist a free-market economia because it distributes too much power to The People. Economic freedom (deconsolidation of the risk) allows for majority rule, but without destroying common divisibility (individuality).
So free-market economics is destroyed in the name of the public interest and bureaucratically modeled. The model reflects the self-concept of the power elite, subordinated to what they ask for on demand.
The on-demand attribution is in the form of being subordinated to the debt to demand the supply, which then describes “the makers” as the “job creators.” Unfortunately, however, resisting the declining rate of profit means job destruction, not creation. To survive, the system must be too big to fail, effectively organizing the credit-protection scheme referred to as regulatory authority.
Whatever is wrong with the system can then be blamed on the regulatory authority, which is a counter-identity game. If the authority is reduced or co-opted to the point of being ineffective, there is a crisis proportion of risk, which is the opportunity to consolidate the wealth using the “force-of-nature” hypothesis (forming an effective model), intending to limit the liability. The solution then is to reestablish the regulatory authority, effectively modeled to repeat the cycle.
The phase we are in now is not stagflation. Growth is slow with no inflation.
The advice is to go for value and not growth, which bids up equity values.
So, what’s your bid!