No not that kind of Bloomberg, THIS KIND
Goodbye, Golden Age of Growth18 JAN 26, 2016 10:00 AM EST
By Robert J. Gordon
Can future innovations match the great inventions of the past? Will artificial intelligence, robots, 3D printing and other offspring of the digital revolution do for economic growth what the second industrial revolution did between 1920 and 1970? The techno-optimist school of economics says yes. I disagree.
The rise in the U.S. standard of living from 1870 to 1970 was a special century – and won’t likely be repeated. Growth over the next quarter century will resemble the slow pace of 2004–2015, not the faster growth rate of 1994–2004, much less the rapid rate achieved between 1920 and 1970.
The good news is that the economy will be able to maintain relatively full employment as the fruits of computerization cause work to evolve slowly, rather than in a great rush. I’m optimistic that job growth will continue and that new jobs will appear as rapidly as technology destroys old ones.So Bloomberg Business is arguing, things will suck more, and that ok because things have been good (ENOUGH) from 2005 till today.
For WHOM?Blankfein, Dimon, Geithner and Paulson and their academic equivalents like Hubbard and Mishkin?
Meanwhile Trump is running AGAINST the way things are, that trade deals and free trade in essence have made the American economy SUCK and he wants to make things better, and “I WIN, do you want to win America?”
Can you blame 41% of republicans?
Is it any wonder that SEIU is so concerned about their union members crossing over to Trump?
How about UAW? AFLCIO?
I remain undecided but I can see how the conventional wisdom is pushing.
It’s incredible, really.