What does reinhardt mean by shopping days left (enterprise corruption)

Could this lead to a collapse? Or is he just saying that this is going to be another bad day? It says shopping days left. Sounds like a collapse to me, but I am new to Reinhardt.

Could this lead to a collapse? Or is he just saying that this is going to be another bad day? It says shopping days left. Sounds like a collapse to me, but I am new to Reinhardt.

Could this lead to a collapse? Or is he just saying that this is going to be another bad day? It says shopping days left. Sounds like a collapse to me, but I am new to Reinhardt.

Could this lead to a collapse? Or is he just saying that this is going to be another bad day? It says shopping days left. Sounds like a collapse to me, but I am new to Reinhardt.


Well, we know the housing market collapsed in the late 1990's or early 2000+'s, then more recently it was the 'turn' of the financial sector; Dow Jones, Nasdaq et al, which means the only sector still (for now) intact, is the high street, or consumer market

So if the western world's economic structure -maybe I'm over simplifying it but lets face it, it's basically a large scale pyramid scheme which, by it's very nature (consumers relying on high repay interest credit loans; governments relying on central banks) was always destined to disappear up it's own arse sooner or later- (blah blah, etc. etc.) - returning to my point; if the administration of our economic and financial systems had been implemented concieved and structured with more realistic and sensible foresight, and less get-rich-quick loopholes, the collapses would most likely not have been as catastrohic.

If only one sector had collapsed, eg- the financial/stock markets - then there may have been a small glimmer of hope that the other two sectors could help "resuscitate" the ailing one just enough that it could recover.. but only IF those pioneering economists applied more prudent insight to plan beyond their next paycheck & Christmas bonus. All dust in the wind now though, I suppose

Anyway, realistically (and jmho), the speculative and shady nature of financial institutions, where although collossal profits and/or losses are made, is the obvious weak link in the chain of three, so the question might be; is it wise to endow competitive, profit driven yuppies (that's posh-speak for gamblers with inflated egos) with the power & ability to make or break the economic landscapes of entire nations in the blink of an eye?

I don't bloody think so