I’m reading Capital in the 21st Century, and Piketty notes that the growth rates that characterized the decades following the world wars were aberrations, not the norm. Growth has largely been very, very slow across most of human history. It’s also worth noting that the intense post-war growth followed by a return to earth has occurred in most countries around the world, regardless of domestic policies, with some, like China, being accelerated in a “catch up phase”. Much of the third world has yet to experience this catch up phase, but are likely to in the next 50 years.
It seems entirely possible that there is no way to replicate what was a relatively short period of hyper-growth that has defined most of our lifetimes, and instead we need to base our policies and planning around the idea that what we’ve considered to be stagnant growth rates are actually the norm.
On the flip side, I've been reading other's claim that we're entering into a new era of growth and productivity, perhaps fueled by competition with China. A cold war space race. Or maybe hitting the correct technological salients.
The examples these proponents cite are GPU explosion, deep learning, M1, Tesla, SpaceX, vast improvements to protein folding, CRISPR, etc.
It's a different perspective, and I'm not sure which one is a better predictor of the future.
I get the sense that we're in broad return to normal growth rates, as you say, but with isolated peaks of innovation that aren't enough to carry the entire economy.
It seems entirely possible that there is no way to replicate what was a relatively short period of hyper-growth that has defined most of our lifetimes, and instead we need to base our policies and planning around the idea that what we’ve considered to be stagnant growth rates are actually the norm.