Not much to say. We've entered the banana zone. It's good to be asset rich.

Here's some simple math (I'll post it because it's quiet and I'm working on simplifying this communication for clients and some courses I teach).

Middle class assumptions:
Year 0 annual living expenses = 100K
Year 0 assets in market = 50K
Year 1 asset inflation (market appreciation) = 10%
Year 1 adjustment to annual living expenses = 110K
Year 1 addition to assets in market = 5k (55K new total)
Net change in available assets relative to living expenses (aka wealth) = negative $5000

Wealthy / Elite assumptions
Year 0 annual living expenses = 200K
Year 0 assets in market = 1 million
Year 1 asset inflation (market appreciation) = 10%
Year 1 adjustment to annual living expenses after asset inflation = 220K
Year 1 addition to assets in market = 100k (1.1 million new total)
Net change in available assets relative to living expenses (aka wealth) = $80,000

Both groups experienced the same "positive" market outcomes in the year, but the outcome is clearly completely different. Then the wealthy congregate on CNBC,  Bloomberg and elite circles in coastal cities to gaslight the public about a "vibecession" because they're having the time of their lives with real life asset inflation that is only great for them.