>Rather than believing central banks can make economies more productive, it’s my bottom line that there’s a naturally occurring growth rate for each economy, an

>Rather than believing central banks can make economies more productive, it’s my bottom line that there’s a naturally occurring growth rate for each economy, and that rate dictates the long-term output, not central bankers’ actions. While I don't disagree in general principle, I simply don't find this observation or belief all too compelling or unique as it's being framed in political context. Ever since Greenspan the Central Banking "toolchest" has been of questionable merit and practical utility. If anything, the asset buying irrational market behavior result (see: US stocks) disconnecting record highs from real-world growth or economic engine performance only seems to acknowledge the "naturally occurring growth rate" concept has merit. Granted, some people don't like talking about how a negative growth rate can be natural too. >The U.S. government couldn’t figure out how to stop it in the 1970s, and the nations of the world can’t find a way to start it today. Oh, they can find a way, they just would prefer not to, methinks.