So we have two parties. The Clinton conventional growth party and the Sanders /Trump disaffected party.
Neither can move towards climate issues because that would imply slowing down the economy and the accumulation of heat in the atmosphere. And notice that the opposition to the central party of the one percent (represented by clinton 2 (and 1) is divided between apparent left – right Sanders -Trump with irreconcilable differences. The outcome just might be that enough of the Sanders democrats (and independents) vote for Trump to elect him president.
There is still so much “hope” that we can grow our way out of an income inequality and underemployment trap problem that makes another problem worse. Look at some of the language:
“financial system no longer funds ideas and projects” Implies that new projects are desirable. But which ones? Standard funding still would funnel wealth upwards and add to greenhouse gases. Standard projects would maybe, but maybe not, increase employment because new money in new projects will lead managers to do what managers do. hire the cheapest labor – in this case robots and algorithms.
“if we wonder why we have a 2% economy…. we should look at the fact that the capital markets are simply not doing what they wee set up to do.” Again implies that growth should be the outcome. (“set up to do” implies an agent. Who was that?)
“funnel our savings into productive investments in new businesses which in turn would create new jobs and growth in a virtuous cycle”. If we look at the world today, increasing gini coefficients, rise of strong men leaders, environmental degradation and the rise of cities totally dependent on current mode of energy use with increasing temperatures (air conditioning 60 story apartment buildings common in the new Asia), it is hard to see this as virtuous.
Back to the title here, can we consider the political mess an output of the economy and hence hold the economy, and it supporting intellectual infrastructure, as responsible for a bad outcome?