I look at recessions as being analogous with a bodybuilding cut cycle. You go through a bulking cycle to build muscle and to do so you consume a calorie surplus. Because it's difficult to tailor your macros precisely, you most likely put on a bit of fat at the same time. So after a period of bulking you undertake a cut cycle, where you burn off all the fat you don't want.
In economic terms, in the bulk cycle there's lots of resources sloshing around so it's easy to start a business, get finance and grow. Then in the cut cycle, the businesses that prove their value remain and we collectively dispense of the ones that don't.
Whilst it is healthy for the overall group, it's not much comfort for the individual humans on the losing end and we should probably do more to help them rebuild their lives afterwards.
Either state what you dislike about the analogy or simply say nothing and downvote the comment if you dislike it. Statements like this add nothing to the debate, enlighten nobody, and are not welcome on this site which strives to minimise such trolling.
It's not a bad analogy. But When your analogy projects an oiled up, banana hammocked, mr olympia in the reader's mind it might detract from the original point.
I’ll substitute bodybuilder for athlete if it ever crops up in conversation again but it seems like the issue is more to do with personal prejudice against bodybuilders than the actual similarities and differences of the respective economic and biological processes.
In economic terms, in the bulk cycle there's lots of resources sloshing around so it's easy to start a business, get finance and grow. Then in the cut cycle, the businesses that prove their value remain and we collectively dispense of the ones that don't.
Whilst it is healthy for the overall group, it's not much comfort for the individual humans on the losing end and we should probably do more to help them rebuild their lives afterwards.