Replies

Then, the time honored solution of war will be initated

What nonsense. The only thing that’s “over” is unbridled federal tyranny at the hands of socialist presidents like Obama.

The voluntary cooperation between buyers and sellers in the market economy free from government interference is ready and very able to do what it does best: create wealth.

Funny that this ‘malaise’ only seems to happen when socialists are running things. A Reagan-esque president could fix that right up.

How can we have “growth”

when we are killing 1.5 million taxpayers every year

here in America?

Thanks SCOTUS.

Thanks PP.

Thanks Dems.

Thanks libs.

Thanks ACLU.

/sarc

My opinion - so take that for what it’s worth:

Growth is limited - note I say limited not eliminated - due to the majority of top tier economies having replacement or negative population growth. US, EU, Britain, Japan, even China.

With an aging population there comes a time when people “have enough” and they are no longer looking to ‘expand’ but instead are looking to ‘downsize’ or ‘simplify’. Part of the driver for importing “refugees” into some of these countries is, in my mind, to offset the demographic shifts in these countries.

There will still be some growth due to technological advances. But the numbers in the majority of 1st/2nd world economies are not going to expand greatly like they did the last century. They will plateau if not slightly dip and then plateau.

More rapid growth could come IF ...I repeat IF... the shackles were to come off the third world nations with greater population growth. These are held in check by corruption, dictatorships, and a lack of freedom, education, and true economic opportunity. Freeing these would likely provide another 100 years of rapid growth until they too started to limit their reproduction.

Likelihood of 3rd world changing for the better in economic freedom or the things that drive it- 10%. Higher for specific countries, but very limited for most. Likelihood that some higher tier economies will instead head down the ladder of economic freedoms - I’d say 70%. Just look at what is happening with France and Germany - don’t think they will have any negative impacts due to their internal problems? Look at the last 10 years of movement on the US in economic freedom ratings, I think we dropped to the mid teens in a recent rating poll if I remember correctly.

So between the high tier demographic drivers and the likelihood of improvements in economic freedom factors, it would appear that rapid (not all) growth is going to be challenged for the near term.

I’m very concerned about what happens to the stock market in the next 10-15 years when all of the baby-boomers start to cash in their 401ks and retirement plans at the same time. Who is going to buy their stock? At what price? Supply vs demand. If they all start selling to pay for their retirement there has to be a buyer - it’ll either be the government (god forbid); other businesses (with limited growth is it the right move for a board to agree?); or a drop in the price until a buyer accepts based on limited demand.

Sorry for the book

Living off of the churn: the bankers’ poisonous dream

If the tension between global capitalism and the nation state was one of the contradictions of Thatcherism, the conflict between globalisation and democracy has undone the left. From Bill Clinton and Tony Blair onwards, the centre left embraced the project of a global free market with an enthusiasm as ardent as any on the right. If globalisation was at odds with social cohesion, society had to be re-engineered to become an adjunct of the market. The result was that large sections of the population were left to moulder in stagnation or poverty, some without any prospect of finding a productive place in society.

History may look on Hillary Clinton’s struggle for the presidency as the closing act in the neoliberal experiment. More than the mistrust she inspires in many voters, or the issues surrounding her health, more even than her Mitt Romney-like dismissal of a sizable section of US voters as “a basket of deplorables”, it is the fact that she is identified with this failed experiment and with those who have most profited from it that casts the longest shadow over her candidacy. Few of those who end up voting for Clinton will do so because they expect her to bring about deep change in the economy.

Many will do so from fear of the alternative. But how many other Americans will be ready to roll the dice and opt for Trump, simply in order to impose change of some sort on the entrenched oligarchies and rigged political system that Clinton represents and embodies to them? Until the votes are counted, it is a question that cannot be answered, but it’s a safe bet that there will be more than have yet revealed themselves to pollsters.