Perhaps the next big change could be in transportation and infrastructure. If someone could reasonably commute to Boston from NYC (or vice versa) via a 250mph bullet train, wouldn't that increase productivity?
This kind of solution sounds like wishing you could fly so that you could get to the bus stop faster.
A better (for almost every meaning of the word) change would be the reduction of the requirement for people to commute - especially over such long distances and times.
If and when the central bank finally sends the interest rates up the stratosphere, real estate and equipment prices will collapse to a fraction of its current value, which will make infrastructure like you mentioned possible.
When they hit limits of monetary policy and stop digging into the hole they are in. Japan is the closest to such a limit. It has relentlessly pumped money into stocks and bonds and now all the JPY does is move up.
Assuming for the moment this is true, what does that imply for near- and mid-term planning purposes for the average software developer with bills to pay but also spare cash to invest?
In the medium term - the prices of stock markets are driven by capital flows. Even the price of a money losing company is going to go up if the pension funds[1] are buying it.
Central bank pulling liquidity out when they finally realise their monetary policy is only making the inevitable worse, will mean a lot less money to flow into various investments.
Therefore, avoid investments that have gone up in the past few years, that went up because of monetary policy (e.g. direct central bank buying, lowering of reserve ratios, lowering of interest rates). Avoid government bonds, avoid municipal bonds, avoid companies that have leveraged up for stock buybacks, ruling out S&P 500. Avoid companies whose stock prices are fueled by margin loans (e.g. tech unicorns). Avoid energy companies that have been limping along because they keep borrowing at low rates. Avoid companies with debt.
In January 2016, the only sector that fulfilled all of these requirements were the junior gold miners - the collapse of gold prices since 2011 has wiped out all but the strongest gold mining companies. They have little debt, high margins, lots of cash and very profitable compared to their share prices. The junior gold mining stock index GDXJ[2] has went up 111% in 3 months.
Of course, now that they're going up, margin loaning investors are piling in, and it's no longer as safe as a rock as it was in January 2016. I'd wait and see if GDXJ corrects back to the mid 20's, and then I'd buy more. (I have 130% of my portfolio in gold miners at the moment, so I'm biased.)
The next sector to look for is overseas iron ore and oil producers. When finally the collapse of iron ore & oil prices has wiped out all the highly indebted and poorly performing companies, you will see the strongest of the bunch go on fire sale shopping spree. Those will be good buys. I think it will happen in 12-24 months. I think we're currently still in the clean up phase at the moment - lots of dead man walking companies hanging on desperately. The Chinese stimulus plan that lit a fire on iron ore prices in the past 2 months is going to prolong this phase for a while yet.
To be fair, they may well be very well aware, but can't decide when to finally pull the plug. There are other issues right now such as the UK Referendum on leaving the EU proto-state Customs Union, plus the forthcoming US Presidential Elections.
Nobody wants to deal with the fallout anyway, but at a febrile time politically it would be even worse. Hence keep putting it off.
The Federal Reserve is very well aware[2], cyclical movements in the economy promotes the creative destruction required to grow the economy in the long run.
At the same time, it's mandate given by the Congress is to minimise cyclical movements in the economy, through maintaining price stability, maximising employment, and moderating long-term interest rates.
Regular periods of price volatility, temporary, massive fall in employment, and sharp interest rate volatility are required for releasing ineffectively used capital and labor in the economy, to be hoovered up by stronger businesses. But the Federal Reserve's mission isn't to promote creative destruction for long term economic growth. It's mission is to maintain economic stability, even if it is anaemia to long term economic growth. In fact, it's mandate doesn't even mention economic growth or productivity.
Why do politicians create a Federal Reserve to do this, and to let it keep this mandate for the past hundred years? Why does President Obama want Federal Reserve to maintain economic stability, even as it corrodes American economy, month by month, year by year?
It's election year, and President Obama wants to convince the world the American economy is doing great.
Reject pessimism, cynicism and know that progress is possible. Progress is not inevitable, it requires struggle, discipline and faith.[1]
Because a firm’s failure frees the labor and capital it employed for use at a more profitable entrant, this process may be described as creative destruction. Although there are costs associated with creative destruction, such as the lost labor of temporarily unemployed workers, it benefits an economy in the long run by moving productive resources into more profitable uses.
The Congress established the statutory objectives for monetary policy--maximum employment, stable prices, and moderate long-term interest rates--in the Federal Reserve Act.
The Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) is firmly committed to fulfilling this statutory mandate.
temporary, massive fall in employment, and sharp interest rate volatility are required for releasing ineffectively used capital and labor in the economy, to be hoovered up by stronger businesses
This argument really needs more economics to back it up, because the trouble with the "creative destruction" line of reasoning is that you get the destruction first and the creation is far from guaranteed.
A big fall in employment is something that has real human consequences in misery, ill-health, and even death. Likewise a capital collapse tends not so much to release capital as destroy it - both in terms of capital values and actual physical capital of abandoned buildings. Detroit's vast areas of abandoned real estate aren't capital that's freed, they're capital that's destroyed one burnt-out building at a time.
Stability is vastly underrated. There are plenty of less stable economies and they do less well. Stability enables planning.
Also, your interest rates/capital investment argument is the wrong way up. The normal understanding of how interest rates affect inflation is that high rates reduce inflation by reducing investment ( e.g. http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/monetarypolicy/Pages/how.aspx ). Raising rates makes it less attractive to make physical investments and more attractive to just leave the money in bonds. Conventionally to encourage more investment we need lower interest rates.
This argument really needs more economics to back it up
Japan has been engaging in this kind of monetary policy for over two decades.
Bloomberg: "Japan Must Let Zombie Companies Die"[1]
A big fall in employment is something that has real human consequences in misery, ill-health, and even death.
I don't think that's a valid argument to prevent short-term unemployment at all costs. Winter brings death to trillions of leaves every year. Does that mean it should be stopped? Half a decade ago Detroit's situation was hopeless. Detroit declared a long overdue bankruptcy in mid-2013. By mid-2015, it's described as a "revival template for struggling U.S. cities"[2]
Also, your interest rates/capital investment argument is the wrong way up.
I'm afraid it is the right way up. The effect you're describing is only valid in the short-term, but it is completely the opposite in the long term. In the long run, nominal interest rates = real interest rates + inflation[3]. As you raise nominal rates, real interest rates remain constant, and inflation must rise to compensate. To encourage investment in the long run, we need higher interest rates. Lower interest rates increase spending in the short term, following the effect you've described. In the underlying economy, this increase in spending is funded by consumption of real capital. (e.g. refraining from capital maintenance and using the funds for consumption activities instead.)
In the underlying economy, this increase in spending is funded by consumption of real capital. (e.g. refraining from capital maintenance and using the funds for consumption activities instead
Surely it's funded by expanded credit - after all, that's the transmission mechanism for this?
And I said that raising nominal rates causes inflation to fall, so I think we're agreeing there. Which in the current environment would imply CPI deflation and the ills thereof.
The papers are produced by individuals within the Federal Reserve, so I know there are individuals in the organisation who is aware, but the way the Federal Reserve acts and the public statements it makes, as group it looks like it isn't aware. Maybe it's kind of like how a PR person working in the cigarette industry thinks smoking is horrible to people's health, but hangs his or her morals at the door when he or she arrives at work.
