/biz/ - Business & Finance

>>1449931
Well economists generally agree on it, just not the actual specifics. It makes sense, at a certain point, in realistic conditions where interest doesn't remain 0, debt payments will eventually eclipse GDP generation. Wealth creation (which increases tax revenue) is second to GDP in government eyes, which is *highly* flawed - it just creates the perception of them doing something and it "working", even though no-one is really better off.
Factor that in, (especially with the influx of immigration) and growth *will* stall; we just don't know exactly or roughly where.
I mean shit, we've had the 'target' of 2% growth (down from 3%) for years and we've not hit it.
We're already closer to 0% according to a lot of economists.

>>1450018
you're right it is far far more complicated. I don't understand it all by a long shot.

What i have noticed, is that central banks and governments have made *huge* gains in power and influence, and that is rarely good, for business, or people in the long term.

But because this is so hard to explain to people who actually understand economics, its impossible to get it across to normies. And so the problem will only get worse as monopolies on power are formed without opposition.

I'd argue the rise of both the far right, and candidates like Sanders are the consequence of the system failing the silent majority, and its them getting their own back.
To me that signals DEEP divisions that are unlikely to be reconciled.

It's resulting in /pol/ seeping into real life and its both scary and mesmerising.

Life will recover, just like markets do. But it looks bleak for the younger generations, who are perhaps the least prepared of any generation for what the future seems to hold.