Every recession in history has generated this same category of article - every generation feels that their recession is special because "things have changed now!"
Maybe this one is different - that's a possibility. But I wouldn't bet my money on it.
Maybe this one is different - that's a possibility. But I wouldn't bet my money on it.
Just looking at the last major recession in the 70s, things did change quite a bit from there. Manufacturing and distribution of goods started to form into the global supply chain we have today, that was certainly a unique development in our world based on changing technologies. It's not that much of a stretch to expect similar unique changes to the global economy today due to changing technology and consumer habits.
People are not good at remembering that we had those same conversations last time and the time before - they get a gut feeling that 'this is the big one', and they pull their money out of the market during the recession and put it back in after everything's ok, essentially tossing a major fraction of their life savings overboard.
What people seem to never consider is that when we actually move out of an expansionist economy, the effects will be much broader than "our stock returns are not so good anymore"; their inability to retire at 65 would be the least of their concerns.
The rates were lowered after the crashes of 2001-2002 and 2008-2009. But the rates cannot be lowered any more. Why? They are at zero, effectively.
That is different.
Gloom and Doom sells papers, and it always has.
They could always go negative:
http://www.global-rates.com/interest-rates/libor/swiss-franc/swiss-franc.aspxSo, are you making the claim that the stock market is less stable today than it was 100 years ago?
it's not just "the economy", it is (people) * (polluting affluent lifestyles). that said, it doesn't help that the people with the bulk of the wealth and political power are the ones that perceive they have the most to lose if the status quo changes.
it also doesn't help that it is very difficult to stay focused on longer-term problems, while society tends to focus on playing the game for short term wins. invest, speculate, profit.
it'll be an interesting few decades. hopefully we realise that ideas that served us well in the past are context-dependent, and the context is changing.
As far as CO2 emissions, the EPA's own statistics suggest a static-to-downward trend since the early 2000s in the U.S. (http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/gases/co2.html). We're barely above where we were in 1990, despite an increase in population from 250 million in 1990 to 319 million today. 3rd World economies will eventually follow suit, as they adopt the cheap new green tech that we're getting.
The trend today is toward more efficient vehicles, cheaper and more available solar for houses, a massive switch in electric power plants from coal and oil to inexpensive natural gas which emits less carbon.
Technology, Chinese mass production of green energy products like solar panels, American fracking of natural gas, all will conspire to reduce the carbon emissions. The trends are heartening.
Wait, there were some huge bird-like animals here 60 million years ago.
Ans doth approaches seem to be equally valid in their specific contexts and applications.