US Voters tell pundits and analysts that any complacency about the future is dramatically mistaken

Comment on the US Primary after Sen. Cruz’s post-Indiana retreat

The results of the US presidential primaries in Indiana mark a watershed moment not only for US politics. For the first time in recent US history voters have rejected in dramatic fashion the TARP-like effort from the media and political establishment to rescue subject establishment from defeat in the GOP Primary. It is now effectively clear that Republican Party frontrunner Donald Trump will be the GOP candidate in the 2016 presidential election. And it is equally clear that Sen. Sanders will continue to mount a credible challenge to Mrs. Clinton’s frontrunner status despite all the odds that were stacked up against him from the get-go.

While there is no denying that voters are sending a powerful message of discontent, concern and frustration about the state of affairs in society and economy, financial experts and commentators go about their business in the same complacent manner as before. They generally continue to believe that more of the same, i.e. a little raising or lowering of interest rates here and some retooling of human capital there will be enough to meet the challenges which the digital age is imposing on us. Nothing could be further from the truth and voters are effectively telling us so. The sad reality is that nobody at this time has any meaningful proposal as to the scope, the content and the direction subject “retooling of human capital” will have to aim for in order to deal with the massive amount of people laid-off or being transferred to inferior low paying jobs in the course of the digital revolution. In fact, there is not even a national debate about this issue. So how can we possibly hope that business as usual will take care of this emergency if that emergency isn’t being sufficiently recognized as it is?

The general public who experiences the precarious aspect of the digital revolution first-hand has a sixth sense that the current levels of expert complacency won’t do the job here. That is why they are looking elsewhere. And they have every right and reason to do so. After all, it may well be that you have to sense this emergency in your own personal life in order to be able to properly appreciate the fragility which is facing the entire system. In other words, it is highly probable that establishment pundits are just too well-off in order to adequately capture the sense of urgency that is actually being required from them.  One might hence argue that voters are the better analysts at this point. And the Indiana results would confirm that assumption.

This entry was posted in Economics, Finance, Politics and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.