The main problem is that precisely in part because the economists have been pushing so hard since 2008, the next downturn, before it hits bottom, will be TRULY MAJOR. We are nowhere near that so far this time around, in my opinion.
The question is how long it will take for panic selling to kick in once a stock market downturn really gets underway.
The last time around, from 2007-2008, they kept it going for an entire year before the Wall Street traders finally (fully) lost confidence.
That is why, when that finally happened, the big drop was vertical.
Most people don't know that the actual top in the stock market happened in October 2007.
The markets then slid along just below that level for an entire year, could not get back above it, until it crashed (and I do mean crashed) at the beginning of October 2008.
Because they held on for so long, when the big drop finally came, it was very sudden and dramatic.
I think that this time, the fact that they hold on for so long before the top is even in will play into it.
"Longest virtually continuous economic expansion in history" before the virus hit. True.
What they fail to mention is that it was also the weakest.
There are a number of economic statistics that are measured on a scale of 100 to 0 - with 50 being the dividing line between expansion and contraction.
These statistics have been ranging between about 50 (sometimes below - "panic time!") to just above 60 since 2009.
Most of the time, they are below 58 and even below 55.
Some analysts claim in recent times that anything above 60 is regarded as a boom.
Either they are playing into the "talk things up whenever possible" game or they have short memories (I think it is the latter).
Before the year 2000, these statistics were routinely well above 60 - and in the late 1990's, they were often, even routinely, near 100 and even at times above 100 (!).
(I remember seeing that myself, the above 100 times, in the news reports.)
During those times, getting as low as 60 would have been regarded as horrible, a disaster.
But bear in mind that these are national statistics - the local area west of Portland is thriving because of the kinds of businesses we have here.
Strictly-speaking, that is true of the entire west coast (urban areas).
In fact, it is my contention that overall, general economic health has been transferring (gradually) from the east coast to the west coast of the United States for a (very) long time already.
That process is just about complete. (There is no place left to go.)
And, in fact, many places back east, though not major urban areas, have been in a depression since at least 2008 already.