I've noted in the past that we've been entering an equilibrium (I say entering because it is at different stages around the world) where there are large pockets of people with needs, but no money - and small pockets of people with money, but no particularly unserved needs.

Economic analysis as operated by many economists breaks down at that point. SRW points to how you can analyse it... but in the end it becomes a political rather than economic problem...

I think it's also really important because it points out how ideologically loaded the notion of "secular stagnation" really is. Conflating technological productivity with "lending productivity" allows lenders to claim a high ground that doesn't belong to them.

It's interesting to me that Clayton Christensen, looking at all this "secular stagnation" stuff from the bottom up (he's a professor studying innovation) has come to very similar conclusions, although he sees it as money trapped in a cycle of financialisation that starves "real economy" innovations of investment...