4 ms·

I'm starting to wonder if "a bit longer" means "forever." There seems to be a real lack of global growth engines.

toomuchtodo 11y ago
If you want to chat over coffee about it, I have a long thesis that agrees with this. Global growth is, for lack of a better way to put it, over. Central planning interest rates will probably never be over 3-4% again (and that's a bullish outlook).
- Seanambers 11y ago
  Question ; Considering the projected growth in world population and the huge amount of poor people in the world. How can growth be over? Or are you thinking mostly about the west?
  - toomuchtodo 11y ago
    Population growth has slowed (or even stopped) in most countries except for a few outliers in Africa: http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.POP.GROW http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.POP.GROW Also, you're assuming more people = population growth; that's like Snapshat saying they're profitable because they have tons of users, but no revenue. You need a properly functioning economy as well as people to have growth (you need more than that, but that's all I included for simplicity sake).
- rrggrr 11y ago
  Totally agree for four reasons: 1. Wealth demography. Wealth is held by older people seeking safety not growth/risk. 2. Capital stagnation. Capital is being stockpiled by central banks and large corporations. The former seeks to rectify structural problems in spending and banking sectors. The latter seeks to avoid tax liability. 3. Small businesses abandoned. Developed nations, the US in particular, have focused resources on the largest institutions and institutions serving the poorest. By comparison small businesses are ignored creating more risk for large institutions, and incrasing the ranks of the poor. 4. Global instability. Declines are almost always preceded by alarming world events causing capital flights that expose imbalances in economies. Yes, the solution is to not have imbalances, but aside from that utopian ideal, restoration of a stable world order opens the door to economic risk taking and then prosperity.
  - toomuchtodo 11y ago
    We're in violent agreement!
- roymurdock 11y ago
  > Central planning interest rates will probably never be over 3-4% again Not until we see a large scale war. Nothing raises interest rates like a bond-funded war campaign. A war would also increase aggregate demand, R&D spend, and decrease the domestic labor force. It's a sad fact that it takes violence/discomfort to galvanize and restore discipline to a nation and its leaders. Not unlike the disruption of old industries by the new. Except in war, you break bones and bodies whereas in startup land you break laws and customs.
  - TheOtherHobbes 11y ago
    Nothing makes them irrelevant like expanding radioactive deserts, huge clouds of fallout, and festering zones of bacterial contamination. I don't think we want a large scale war. Technology benefited a lot from previous wars - without WWII and the Cold War computing and telecoms would be a few decades behind - but technology has changed the risk/benefit profile to make war unfeasibly destructive. The irony is there's a lot that could be done. We need clean energy, more support for small businesses of all kinds, desalination, infrastructure replacement, and possibly a hugely increased space program. But current economic models are fiscally constipated - possibly terminally - and improvements are unlikely until they're replaced.
    - pdkl95 11y ago
      > The irony is there's a lot that could be done. We should have been doing all that and more. Unfortunately, the only thing that was politically feasible was QE. > But current economic models are fiscally constipated Absolutely. After hearing Mark Blyth's recent "ha ha only serious" summary[1] of both of these points... it's going to be a rough ride. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iJCcoF5K0SM#t=1160 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iJCcoF5K0SM#t=1160
      - toomuchtodo 11y ago
        Thanks for this video!

If you want to chat over coffee about it, I have a long thesis that agrees with this. Global growth is, for lack of a better way to put it, over. Central planning interest rates will probably never be over 3-4% again (and that's a bullish outlook).

Seanambers 11y ago
Question ; Considering the projected growth in world population and the huge amount of poor people in the world. How can growth be over? Or are you thinking mostly about the west?
- toomuchtodo 11y ago
  Population growth has slowed (or even stopped) in most countries except for a few outliers in Africa: http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.POP.GROW http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.POP.GROW Also, you're assuming more people = population growth; that's like Snapshat saying they're profitable because they have tons of users, but no revenue. You need a properly functioning economy as well as people to have growth (you need more than that, but that's all I included for simplicity sake).
rrggrr 11y ago
Totally agree for four reasons: 1. Wealth demography. Wealth is held by older people seeking safety not growth/risk. 2. Capital stagnation. Capital is being stockpiled by central banks and large corporations. The former seeks to rectify structural problems in spending and banking sectors. The latter seeks to avoid tax liability. 3. Small businesses abandoned. Developed nations, the US in particular, have focused resources on the largest institutions and institutions serving the poorest. By comparison small businesses are ignored creating more risk for large institutions, and incrasing the ranks of the poor. 4. Global instability. Declines are almost always preceded by alarming world events causing capital flights that expose imbalances in economies. Yes, the solution is to not have imbalances, but aside from that utopian ideal, restoration of a stable world order opens the door to economic risk taking and then prosperity.
- toomuchtodo 11y ago
  We're in violent agreement!
roymurdock 11y ago
> Central planning interest rates will probably never be over 3-4% again Not until we see a large scale war. Nothing raises interest rates like a bond-funded war campaign. A war would also increase aggregate demand, R&D spend, and decrease the domestic labor force. It's a sad fact that it takes violence/discomfort to galvanize and restore discipline to a nation and its leaders. Not unlike the disruption of old industries by the new. Except in war, you break bones and bodies whereas in startup land you break laws and customs.
- TheOtherHobbes 11y ago
  Nothing makes them irrelevant like expanding radioactive deserts, huge clouds of fallout, and festering zones of bacterial contamination. I don't think we want a large scale war. Technology benefited a lot from previous wars - without WWII and the Cold War computing and telecoms would be a few decades behind - but technology has changed the risk/benefit profile to make war unfeasibly destructive. The irony is there's a lot that could be done. We need clean energy, more support for small businesses of all kinds, desalination, infrastructure replacement, and possibly a hugely increased space program. But current economic models are fiscally constipated - possibly terminally - and improvements are unlikely until they're replaced.
  - pdkl95 11y ago
    > The irony is there's a lot that could be done. We should have been doing all that and more. Unfortunately, the only thing that was politically feasible was QE. > But current economic models are fiscally constipated Absolutely. After hearing Mark Blyth's recent "ha ha only serious" summary[1] of both of these points... it's going to be a rough ride. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iJCcoF5K0SM#t=1160 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iJCcoF5K0SM#t=1160
    - toomuchtodo 11y ago
      Thanks for this video!