Behind The Weakest Post War Recovery In History - Part 1

Summary

• The economy has been mired in the weakest post war recovery in history since the Great Recession ended in June 2009.
• Despite a national debt that has roughly doubled over eight years, an over $800 billion stimulus plan and the quintupling of the Fed's balance sheet, GDP growth has been anemic.
• To put this in perspective, growth in this recovery is less than half the average of its nine predecessors and 40% of that coming of the last major recession (80-82).
• There are many reasons for this encompassing poor policy choices, regulatory policies, demographics and failed monetary and fiscal programs.
• Unfortunately regardless of who is elected, it is very doubtful growth will accelerate under the 45th president. What investors should know and act regarding the secular decline of U.S. growth.

"If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there'd be a shortage of sand." - Milton Friedman

The economy has been in the weakest post war recovery in history since the Great Recession ended in June 2009. Despite a national debt that has roughly doubled over eight years, an over $800 billion stimulus plan in 2009 and the quintupling of the Fed's balance sheet, GDP growth has been past anemic in a historical context.

To put this in perspective, growth in this recovery is less than half the average of its nine predecessors and 40% of that coming of the last major recession (80-82). In the four years (2010-2014) after the recessionary year of 2009, GDP growth clocked in with an average annual GDP growth of 2.1%. The average GDP growth in the four years following the ends of recession following the previous 9 post WWII recessions was 4.4%, to put that in perspective. Growth after the large double dip recession of 1980 through 1982 was 5.3% over the next four years.

There are many reasons for this, encompassing poor policy choices, regulatory policies, demographics and largely failed monetary & fiscal programs. Unfortunately regardless of who is elected, it is very doubtful growth will accelerate under the 45th president. Here's what investors should know and act regarding the secular decline of U.S. growth.

Despite near zero interest rates, a huge almost trillion dollar stimulus package and unprecedented support from the Federal Reserve, the current president will go down as the first one in the country's history that served a full term with not one year of at least three percent GDP growth. This is a period that has encompassed a civil war, two world wars as well as myriad economic panics, recessions and depressions.

To be fair our growth has been better than some of the other developed economies who have worse demographics and whose governments spend an even larger percentage of GDP that we do here, such as Japan and Europe.

In addition, the country is also aging. This accounts for approximately half of three percent drop in the labor participation rate from pre-financial crisis levels. The rest is from a combination of individuals going on various forms of government support particularly social security disability insurance as well as people not having the skills for the positions that are currently available.

The other part of the slow growth of the past seven years has been poor policy choices both by the administration and the central bank. The various quantitative easing programs from the Federal Reserve have been a major factor in the large rise in asset values such as in the equity markets and real estate. However, low interest rates have punished savers and ironically forced many to save even more of their income to compensate for such low returns from income producing assets.

On the fiscal side, we have seen a huge surge in the amount of regulations on various sectors of the economy from Dodd-Frank through the legislative branch to very aggressive government agencies such as the EPA and NLRB. This has had a direct impact on business formation, a key driver of job growth. In the four years after the recession of the early 90s (1992-1995), there were ~420,000 new business formations in the country. After the downturn in the aftermath of the internet bust and 09/11 (2002 - 2005), there were ~400,000 new business formations. In the 2010 - 2014 period, there were only 166,000 new business formations.

All of these are key factors in why the country has produced such tepid growth during this recovery. It is also the reason despite all the efforts (mostly misguided in my opinion) on the fiscal and monetary side over the past almost decade, median income is still lower than it was before the financial crisis. It is also the reason 70% of the electorate believes the country is heading in the wrong direction according to polls.

Unfortunately, I do not see that changing over the next four years regardless of who is the 45th president. On one side, you have a candidate whose policies are ill-formed and that has little chance of winning. On the other hand, you have a candidate that wants to double down on the big government policies of the past eight years that have yielded little in the way of economic growth. This was reaffirmed yesterday when Hillary Clinton floated her idea of a government panel to further regulate drug prices which caused the pharma & biotech sectors to decline in trading Friday.

Neither nominee will pursue the tax, structural and entitlement reforms necessary to boost GDP into the 3% to 4% range. Given this, investors should allocate their portfolios accordingly. The "profit recession" of the past five quarters within the S&P 500 will be hard to break out of and very slow earnings growth should remain a constant over the next four years as well. Low interest rates should also remain in place.

Given this, investors should invest in companies that can produce both revenue & earnings growth despite a dismal global backdrop as well as a good dollop of solid yielding investments at reasonable valuations. In part II of this article, I will discuss a few of these plays I am adding to within my own portfolio in front of the upcoming election.

Note: To get these types of articles as soon as they are published, just click on my profile and hit the big orange "follow" button and choose the real-time alerts option.

Analyst’s Disclosure: I/we have no positions in any stocks mentioned, and no plans to initiate any positions within the next 72 hours. I wrote this article myself, and it expresses my own opinions. I am not receiving compensation for it (other than from Seeking Alpha). I have no business relationship with any company whose stock is mentioned in this article.

Comments

[Bret Jensen]

Number of Day: 11.5%..The percent of "improper payments" currently in Medicaid, AKA, Fraud. 5.8%, what it stood at in 2013, before fuller implementation of the ACA....

[Bull & Bear Trading]

Bret, this outstanding article is 100% straight on point. Our nation must begin fighting the cancerous socialism that has infected our economy at every level or we will continue on our pathway towards the results of other socialist economies: Portugal, Italy, Ireland (in recovery due to conservative economic reforms), Greece, Spain, and Venezuela. Socialism has failed economically in dozens of countries over hundreds of years. But for some insane reason our nation supports far-left wing nuts like Obama, Sanders, and the Clintons who keep driving us further down the road of increasing debt, over regulation, and economic stagnation.

Conservative capitalist economic policies have proven themselves as the pathway to economic growth and greater opportunity for all income levels and demographics. We must embrace conservative capitalism again and reject socialism. I was a John Kasich supporter during the GOP primaries but I am now in the anybody but Hillary camp. I am trying to come to terms with the prospects of voting for Trump... and will likely rationalize this action as a vote against Hillary. Anyways, great article Bret. Thank you.

[Bhavneesh Sharma]

IMO, what we call weak recovery is the sign of a mature economy. US cannot grow 7-8% like emerging economies. 2-3% GDP growth is sufficient. Entrepreneurship is flourishing due to low interest rates and cheap loans. This is the second longest bull market in the history and the S&P 500 has triples since 2009. I wonder what is there to complain about 'weak recovery'. We are anyway in last stages of the economic up cycle.

[Doneonbadstreet]

The complaint about GDP is primarily due to a lack of objective economic stats, that are favorable for their party, and without context.

[Frank19z]

Inc Magazine:

""American Entrepreneurship Is Actually Vanishing. Here's Why.
According to recent studies, the rate of startup creation has been decreasing for years. Are we witnessing the slow death of entrepreneurship? ...the Brookings Institution, also using Census data, established that the number of new businesses is down across the country and that more businesses are dying than are being born.""

Even from a very biased liberal newspaper that is absent any form of reasonable professional journalism for the past 10 years:

Washington Post
May 19, 2016

""Silicon Valley has more than 23,000 start-ups, at least according to the networking site AngelList. It certainly feels that way when you’re in Palo Alto. But it turns out that this place is the exception to a worrying trend. It is by now well documented that start-up activity has been slowing down in the United States for about three decades, dropping sharply over the past 10 years. Even as American culture has turned entrepreneurs into rock stars, the U.S. economy is producing fewer and fewer of them. Start-ups have been central to America’s economic health. A study published in December by the National Bureau of Economic Research points out that during the 1980s and 1990s, when entrepreneurial activity was high, new companies played an outsize role in boosting innovation, productivity and job creation. Not the case today.

[Bret Jensen]

New business formation (166,000 from 2010 to 2014) was down some 60% from recoveries in the 90s (1992-1995, 420,000) and 2000s (2002-2005, 400,000) so I would hardly say entrepreneurship has "flourished" under this administration.

[Steve Condie]

Seems to me the author has cherry-picked stats to conform to an ideologically based pre-existing conclusion. This is a chart of GDP in constant dollars since 1050:

[Fred Schwartz]

Steve, there is no cherry picking of data. Unprecedented govt. debt that leads to lackluster gdp is proven by facts here.

[Bret Jensen]

Also interesting that the best growth under Obama was 2013 when the sequester cuts took effect.

[Bhavneesh Sharma]

I agree, the economy is doing just fine. Nothing to complain. Loans are cheap.

[Bret Jensen]

Good send up book review in Barron's this week on why socialists constant use as Scandinavia as the one (and quite frankly only example) place socialism actually works is like most things the Left believes.......is in error.

"American progressives have fallen in love with Scandinavia. In their view, all the U.S. need do is emulate the Nordic countries of Denmark, Norway, Finland, and Sweden by embracing a large public sector, high taxes, and a generous welfare system. The result would be economic prosperity, less income inequality, greater longevity, and high levels of life satisfaction.

The main problem with this view of Scandinavian Shangri-La is that it is complete fantasy. That’s the down-to-earth conclusion of Nima Sanandaji, a Swedish author of Iranian descent. In this accessible book, he shows that most of the success one sees in Nordic countries is the legacy of a unique culture that benefited from an impressive and early dose of free-market economic policies. In fact, the growth of the welfare state, which only began in earnest in the 1960s, has held back social and economic progress.

The author demonstrates that long before high tax rates and massive public expenditures, Nordic countries enjoyed relatively low rates of poverty, little income inequality, and long life spans. This was due to healthy lifestyles, unique norms of behavior that greatly encouraged productivity, and high levels of trust. Equally important, Nordic societies were early adopters of public policies that strongly supported private-property rights and entrepreneurship.

Those who stress that Scandinavians live longer than Americans run into an obvious problem when they try to attribute the gap to the Nordic countries’ welfare states. As the author points out, the gap in life expectancy between Scandinavians and Americans was even wider in the early 1960s, before the Nordic welfare states arose.

Indeed, after the Nordics’ transition to large welfare states, their economic growth suffered substantial declines. Today, as never before, a significant proportion of the Nordic population is trapped in poverty and dependent on welfare handouts.

In the area of immigration, Sanandaji highlights evidence that the U.S. does a much better job of absorbing immigrants and refugees. In America, those who are born abroad have a higher employment rate than the native born. In the Nordics, the opposite is true. For example, the employment rate in Sweden among those born in Somalia is only 21%, less than half the percentage in the U.S. Highly educated immigrants, such as those coming from Iran, also fare less well in the Nordics than they do in the U.S.

Nordic societies failed to properly integrate immigrants due to a toxic combination of union power, employment-protection policies, and generous welfare benefits. Labor unions negotiate wages in nearly all medium-size and large enterprises. This has led to high entry-level wages that hurt the employment prospects of those with little work experience, namely, immigrants and youth. Employment-protection policies that raise the cost of dismissing an employee also discourage firms from taking a chance and hiring less-experienced workers. It should, therefore, be no surprise that in Sweden, 40% of refugees are still on welfare 10 years after arrival.

The social disruption engendered by the Nordic transition to big government did eventually take its toll. It led to a deterioration in popular support for the labor movement and social democratic parties. A coalition of center-right parties is now in power in Denmark. Finland and Iceland are also governed by the center-right. A conservative party is in charge in Norway. In Nordic countries, the direction of change is back to lower taxes, smaller government, and free markets."

Link: http://bit.ly/2cejpLV

ROBERT M. SAUER is a professor of economics at the University of London and the president of the Jerusalem Institute for Market Studies.

[Random Logic]

Thanks for pointing out that piece in Barron's. I had missed it.

[fredruffy]

Isn't part of the issue the "law of large numbers'? If you look back to the early 1980s the GDP was less than $5 trillion so 4% of that is $200 billion. If you look at a $17 trillion economy 2% growth is $340 billion. Certainly not suggesting this accounts for the entire issue but it is worth noting that this is simple math and worth considering when thinking that 2% is anemic. It still represents a significant amount of growth if we continue on this low trajectory.

Best

[gret]

How much of your "significant" 2% growth is predicated on printed/borrowed electrons or government transfer payments; not to mention the population growth since the 80's ???

[fredruffy]

Well the population grows roughly 1% per year with some major adjustments recognized when the census is taken. There are many factors to consider on both sides of the equation. Inflation was much more of a factor in the past and it is very low now so I'd argue that the growth we have is significant. Likewise, the huge increases in housing prices and other assets accounted for a huge part of the increase before the last bust so we have managed growth while worldwide deflation in key areas i.e. metals, energy, farm commodities has had a negative impact on growth. In addition, transfer payments on a per capital basis are far lower than before we embarked on welfare reform so you can't make the argument that it is all government payments. It is a complex issue and I think it is flawed to just focus on a percentage rather than the underlying "real growth" that exists which is far better than many of the industrialized countries. Our annual increase in GDP is larger than 160 of the 191 countries aggregate GDP. The cutoff is at Norway which has an annual GDP of around $350 billion so our GDP is still adding the equivalent of Norway every year. Not too bad...

[Doneonbadstreet]

Unless I missed one, aside from Ireland, Luxembourg and Sweden, we are actually doing better than any other modern industrialized country.
Countries with highest GDP Growth

Papua New Guinea 16.00
2 Macau[3] 11.90
3 Turks and Caicos Islands[4] 11.20
4 Monaco 9.30
5 Ethiopia 8.70
6 Turkmenistan 8.50
7 Myanmar 8.50
8 Democratic Republic of the Congo 8.40
9 Cote d'Ivoire 8.20
10 Nauru 8.00
11 India 7.80
12 Bhutan 7.70
13 Maldives 7.60
14 Republic of Ireland 7.60
15 Laos 7.50
16 Cambodia 7.00
17 Mozambique 7.00
18 Philippines 7.00
19 Tanzania 6.90
20 Chad 6.90
21 China 6.90
22 Uzbekistan 6.80
23 Rwanda 6.50
24 Kenya 6.50
25 Vietnam 6.50
26 Bangladesh 6.50
27 Djibouti 6.50
28 Niue[5] 6.20
29 Panama 6.00
30 Gibraltar[6] 6.00
31 Dominican Republic 5.50
32 Benin 5.50
33 Central African Republic 5.50
34 Sri Lanka 5.50
35 Togo 5.40
36 Cameroon 5.30
37 Uganda 5.20
38 West Bank 5.10
39 Senegal 5.10
40 Burkina Faso 5.00
41 Sao Tome and Principe 5.00
42 Mali 5.00
43 Pakistan 5.00
44 Saint Kitts and Nevis 5.00
45 Morocco 4.90
46 Namibia 4.80
47 Eritrea 4.80
48 Indonesia 4.70
49 Guinea-Bissau 4.70
50 Qatar 4.70
50 The Gambia 4.70
51 Malaysia 4.70
52 Northern Mariana Islands[7] 4.50
53 Luxembourg 4.40
54 Oman 4.40
55 Zambia 4.30
56 Niger 4.30
57 Fiji 4.30
58 Timor-Leste 4.30
59 Egypt 4.20
60 Mauritania 4.10
61 Bolivia 4.10
62 Nicaragua 4.00
63 Nigeria 4.00
64 Malawi 4.00
65 Azerbaijan 4.00
66 Palau 4.00
67 Czech Republic 3.90
68 Guatemala 3.80
69 Iceland 3.70
70 Somalia 3.70
71 Sint Maarten[8] 3.60
72 Curaçao[9] 3.60
73 Cabo Verde 3.50
74 Gabon 3.50
75 Ghana 3.50
76 Mongolia 3.50
77 Honduras 3.50
78 Tuvalu 3.50
79 Seychelles 3.50
80 Montserrat[10] 3.50
81 Sudan 3.50
82 Angola 3.50
83 Poland 3.50
84 Grenada 3.40
85 Romania 3.40
86 Saudi Arabia 3.40
87 Bahrain 3.40
88 Nepal 3.40
89 Malta 3.40
90 Madagascar 3.40
91 Solomon Islands 3.30
92 Macedonia 3.20
93 Mauritius 3.20
94 Montenegro 3.20
95 Guyana 3.20
96 Slovakia 3.20
97 Kosovo 3.20
98 Spain 3.10
99 Turkey 3.00
100 Tajikistan 3.00
101 Paraguay 3.00
102 Hungary 3.00
103 Costa Rica 3.00
104 United Arab Emirates 3.00
105 Algeria 3.00
106 Jordan 2.90
107 Faroe Islands[11] 2.90
108 Uruguay 2.80
109 Sweden 2.80
110 New Caledonia[12] 2.80
111 Dominica 2.80
112 Tonga 2.70
113 South Korea 2.70
114 Albania 2.70
115 United States 2.60
116 Botswana 2.60
117 Samoa 2.60
118 Lesotho 2.60
119 Thailand 2.50
120 Israel 2.50
121 Haiti 2.50
122 United Kingdom 2.50
123 Colombia 2.50
124 Hong Kong[13] 2.50
125 Armenia 2.50
126 French Polynesia[14] 2.40
127 Peru 2.40
128 Australia 2.40
129 Aruba[15] 2.40
130 Slovenia 2.30
131 Mexico 2.30
132 El Salvador 2.30
133 Chile 2.30
134 Belize 2.20
135 Singapore 2.20
136 Taiwan 2.20
137 Antigua and Barbuda 2.20
138 New Zealand 2.20
139 Isle of Man[16] 2.20
140 Latvia 2.20
141 Saint Vincent and the Grenadines 2.10
142 Bosnia and Herzegovina 2.10
143 Georgia 2.00
144 Lebanon 2.00
145 Kyrgyzstan 2.00
146 Afghanistan 2.00
147 Estonia 2.00
148 Swaziland 1.90
149 Kiribati 1.80
150 European Union 1.80
151 Saint Lucia 1.80
152 Lithuania 1.80
153 Netherlands 1.80
154 Liechtenstein 1.80
155 Bulgaria 1.70
156 Cayman Islands[17] 1.70
157 Marshall Islands 1.70
158 Denmark 1.60
159 Portugal 1.60
160 Kazakhstan 1.50
161 Germany 1.50
162 Suriname 1.50
163 Zimbabwe 1.40
164 South Africa 1.40
165 British Virgin Islands[18] 1.30
166 Belgium 1.30
167 Cuba 1.30
168 Kuwait 1.20
169 France 1.20
170 The Bahamas 1.20
171 Jamaica 1.10
172 Cocos (Keeling) Islands[19] 1.00
173 Republic of the Congo 1.00
174 Switzerland 1.00
175 Trinidad and Tobago 1.00
176 North Korea 1.00
177 Barbados 1.00
178 Canada 1.00
179 Comoros 1.00
180 San Marino 1.00
181 Tunisia 1.00
182 Greenland[20] 0.90
183 Norway 0.90
184 Liberia 0.90
185 Guernsey[21] 0.90
186 Croatia 0.80
187 Austria 0.80
188 Italy 0.80
189 Iran 0.80
190 Guam[22] 0.60
191 Japan 0.60
192 Cyprus 2.50
126 Serbia 0.50
194 Argentina 0.40
195 Finland 0.40
196 Cook Islands[23] 0.10
197 Iraq 0.00
198 Guinea 0.00
199 Federated States of Micronesia -0.20
200 Jersey[24] -0.30
201 Puerto Rico[25] -0.60
202 Ecuador -0.60
203 Moldova -1.00
204 Brunei -1.20
205 Andorra -1.60
206 Vanuatu -2.00
207 Greece -2.30
208 American Samoa[26] -2.40
209 Bermuda[27] -2.50
210 Brazil -3.00
211 Belarus -3.60
212 Russia -3.90
213 South Sudan -5.30
214 United States Virgin Islands -5.40
215 Libya -6.10
216 Burundi -7.20
217 Anguilla[28] -8.50
218 Syria -9.90
219 Venezuela -10.00
220 Equatorial Guinea -10.20
221 Ukraine -11.00
222 Gaza Strip -15.00
223 Sierra Leone -23.90
224 Yemen -28.10

[lj32]

See my comment above re spare time...

[Doneonbadstreet]

There is a remarkable capability available to you for free on the internet. It is called search. It is really fast. Another called copy and paste. Maybe you can find a youtube, but you will have to search first.

[lj32]

Leave no stone unturned!

[2Reb]

r>g. Portfolio return greater than economic growth. This is the formula that Thomas Pikettty has used to explain to the explosion of economic inequality we have observed in recent years. That explanation probably does not work. But investors should nevertheless commit it to memory, because this formula probably is the key to investment success.

Suppose that economic growth is in the 1% to 2% range, and a large number of investment opportunities are in the 3% plus range. Is this not a formula for investment success? Are these facts not currently evident? I think it is and they are.

Do you want to bet that the thirty-year treasury will ever trade with a yield over 3%? Do you want to bet that KO, or MO, or PG, or JNJ will ever cut their dividends? I'll take those bets.

[Ber123]

Bret, Good article, and I agree with almost 100% of your premises.

I agree that Obama will finish as the worst President for the USA in recent history. And that should not come as a surprise, since what conditions did he had to become President ?
Been a "community organizer" or his leftist connections with George Soros, Bill Ayers and others.?
http://bit.ly/2cqlcLl

I remember back in 1960 when Eisenhower was president, that he was concerned about the trade deficit and the fact that U.S. gold holdings as of Nov23,1961 were $17,986,000,000,( the lowest amount since 1940), while foreign governments and individuals held about $18 billion in dollars and other liquid obligations at that time, which meant that if all of them requested payment in gold at once, the U.S. gold stocks would be wiped out.
But now that the US money is no longer backed by gold or silver, and the Government can run the printing press at whatever rate they want.
The National Debt has reportedly increased above $19 trillions and is increasing by more than $2 Billions daily.
http://bit.ly/2cci8ox

The 2008-2009 depression was triggered by the collapse of the housing market, which was caused by Freddy and Fanny, and when Obama had control of the Senate and the House during his first 4 years, and he doubled the National Debt with his Stimulus Package, his main accomplishment was Obamacare, which is already showing more signs of its progressive failure.
And while as I mention "progressive", I still recall communists converting or renamed as "socialists", and then later becoming "progressives".
But Communism and Socialism has failed in all countries where it has been installed. We just have to look at the more recent nearby examples of Cuba and Venezuela.
Instead of depending more on a Centrist Government, we probably need to have more Decisions by State and Local Governments, where decisions are made closer to the People, and any errors should be easier to correct.
The choices we have for the November Election are not that good.
But I would rather vote for Trump, whom I think will try hard to pick the best help he can for each Department, than for Hillary who has been shown to be a chronic liar, and would be a continuation of Obama's failed "Progressive" Policies.
Bernard

[erich1]

The information you presented in your article is the exact reason why I have spent most of my time looking for investment opportunities outside of the US, Europe, and Japan. The rest of the world is fairly poor, growing their GDP at 2-3x developed markets, and looking to raise their standard of living.

[Doneonbadstreet]

Your comment about labor participation rate is interesting. You state much of the change in labor participation rate is due to an aging population, which is true, and it is welcome to see this pointed out, as most commentators, manage to avoid this fact.

But then you proceed to imply that the increase in social security disability cost, is due in large part, to people choosing not to participate in the labor force.

Does it not stand to reason, that the cost and rate of disability is much higher, in a much older population?

[User 848063]

Hi Bret,

Thanks always for any information on biotech. I have found that history will take care of itself and arguing pros and cons is a treadmill of futility. Just keep writing about how we can do better financially. Thanks.

[sgottenyc]

Good point well made!

[wclark8622]

Bret, good article. Sad facts. The only candidate that even mentions reigning in spending is Gary Johnson. We have become Debtor Nation. And because yields are hard to find Trading Nation as well. We need a different mindset in power. I would like serious discussion around having non-economists run the economy also. The results have been weak.

[2Reb]

I am in near complete agreement with the author's analysis. I would probably just be more inclined to predict its persistence and immunity to policy change longer than he would. There is a lot of evidence that price regimes tend to remain stable for very long periods of time, so I would expect interest rates to remain low for much longer than anyone suspects.

It is important to bear in mind that knowledge is partly seeing and partly understanding. Don't make the mistake of assuming that you cannot possibly be seeing what you think you are seeing unless you understand the reasons for it. Just look around you. Are populations declining, wages shrinking, and the culture expressing more interest in free time than acquiring more stuff? If the answer is yes, then don't expect a sudden snap-back to the opposite. More than likely, you will get what you see (whether you understand it or not) for quite some time.

[ajax133]

Bret: Extraordinary article. Your Macro side is at least the equivalent of your Biotech side. That said, all your points are well stated and fact. One area of disagreement is Mr Trump. Warts and all, Narcissistic Personality Disorder included, he is a businessman. The country doesn't need another political hack , or a clueless Obama type again. Obama will go down in history as the only President to make Jimmy Carter look good. As a businessman, Trump can help restore the Middle Class by renegotiating Trade agreements and bringing back the Trillions of dollars into a stagnant economy. I'd much prefer Carl Icahn renegotiating a trade agreement with China as opposed to a life long Political Hack. The biggest problem this Country faces is neither Global Warming or ISIS, but rather the Economy. Mr Trump can bring the multi Trillions of dollars Corporate America has off shore back by passing a flat 15% tax and immediately recreate our lost Middle Class. High paying jobs is the answer, and you need money to make that happen. Our Nation functions best with a healthy two Party System. I believe, not because Trump is that foresighted , but because of his MoMo, he will create, all of the above. Not exactly his agenda, but I believe he will reform the Republican Party. Expanding the tent to include a more culturally diverse party, getting rid of the Tea Party and bringing back The Moderate Republican Wing. He is the definition of change , and with the right people in his Cabinet, nothing crazy will happen. The French press has been asking through Op Ed pieces and Cartoons, "Where is the United States when the world needs a Super Power?" As a Super Power we can help restore order in a world gone amuck. Building up our Military , taking out ISIS with a coalition of Special Services he will give our Country a desperately needed win under its belt, the first since WWII. That will elevate the self esteem and confidence of our people and help make America great again. Including the young 30 year olds still living at home, It will be contagious. Every one wants to be Number One again.
Warts and all that's what Trump brings to the table. Nothing he specifically does, but rather the leadership and style he bares is enough for all the above mentioned items to occur. We need change and Leadership.

[jasonomer]

it almost as if the world has changed since 1945...

If you think today's economic reality has anything in common with the last 50 years, you might need to re-examine reality. Also, maybe look up the term globalisation and then compare the recoveries of the new age with those for the 1500s.
as if there were any comparison

[gret]

And your point is ??

[gret]

Make that: not allow that to happen

[gret]

I'm afraid that the 51% of "the takers" will allow that to happen

[JCCIII]

Bret. Your article is eye opening. Financial engineering (QE and ZIRP) and excessive government intrusions/over regulation are a combination that do not produce the growth that previously less constrained capitalism did. I hope that, come November, enough of the country has noticed to overcome the large number of Americans who are now government dependent and vote for a living; time for real change. I look forward to Part II.

[Kirk Miner]

Excellent Summary. Will IBB hold 280 and resume its upward trend? What do you do with small cap biotech that have been crushed... BDSI, CLVS, DVAX, HTBX, MACK, CARA, IMNP, INSY, and SGYP? You mention new opportunities every day, but when will the carnage end?