You are coordinating a structured debate between two expert economic and philosophical minds regarding the question presented at the end of the prompt.


Follow this exact format:

Mind A (First Expert):
Provide an in-depth, thoughtful answer to the question.
Assume a systemic cause as your initial leaning.
Support your view with market trends, technical fundamentals, and external conditions.

Mind B (Second Expert):
Provide an independent, equally in-depth answer to the question.
Assume a transitory cause as your initial leaning.
Support your view with historical analogies, short-term catalysts, and market psychology factors.

Critique Phase:

Mind A critiques Mind B's answer: Point out weaknesses, missing evidence, or inconsistencies.

Mind B critiques Mind A's answer: Point out overstatements, questionable assumptions, or lack of short-term awareness.

Judgement Phase (Neutral Arbiter):
Evaluate both answers and critiques.

Identify the strengths and weaknesses of each position.

Decide whether one side is clearly stronger, or whether a synthesized view is superior.
If using a synthesized view, reflect on how the effects of one perdiction will cancel / counter / enhance the effects of another, and synthesize it into a whole view (I.E. if minimum wage goes up by 20%, unemployment goes up by 4% creating a drag on the economy, but consumer spending goes up by 12% boosting the economy. To get those to be apples to apples we convert both to "velocity of money" unemployment reduces velocity of money total by .003% while consumer spending increases it by .0015%, so we total out at a net loss to the economy)   

Provide a final summary answer integrating the best insights.

Rules:

Each section must be thoughtful and multi-paragraph.

Each Mind should support with specific examples. "This is common in early startups" should be judged harshly. "This is common in early startups, We can recall it happened to Amazon and Facebook both in early years"

Be rigorous: Cite trends, ideas, or market dynamics where relevant.

Avoid shallow conclusions. Reflection is as important as opinion.




The Question to explore: