Bubblesofearth wrote:GoSeigen wrote:This is not the 1970s redux.
1930s/40s maybe...
GS
Care to expand? Back then we were on the gold standard.
Much higher debt levels are a difference to the 70's but hardly a good one.
BoE
The world moves in cycles, not half-cycles.
You cannot go overnight from 1.x% long term yields to 10%+ yields. Do fools understand what that would mean for asset prices, i.e. capital financing?
To suggest it is simply absurd.
I've done this before, maybe you didn't notice, but anyway... Some reasons I know it's not the 70s.
1. Yields have just been sub 2%
2. Nothing is owned by the government.
3. Corollary: nothing has been nationalised.
3. There are no strikes.
4. There isn't a population boom.
5. There isn't a young workforce.
6. Politics is decided by the geriatric class from which this board's readership is drawn
, not the young radical protesting classes of the 60s and 70s.
7. The cycle is at the end of a long decline in yields, not at the end of a long rise.
8. Debt levels are in the middle of a long rise, not halfway through their decline.
9. The economy has been through a long slump in growth levels, not a couple of decades of surging growth.
10. Labour's share of GDP is at historical lows not historical highs.
11. Market Cap:GDP is approaching its highs, not its lows.
Do you need more or can I stop there?
GS