The Political Economist

In the previous text I presented several economic hypotheses explaining why the developed world has entered what could possibly be a prolonged period of economic stagnation. In today's text ( note: long read ) I will present my own opinion, arguing that what we are experiencing is a temporary slowdown which could last for several decades, but one that could also provide the greatest opportunity for the next huge boost in living standards. I hypothesize that the underlying factor behind both the current temporary stagnation (particularly in productivity and real wages) and the upcoming rise in living standards is - technology .  As I've emphasized several times on the blog before, I believe we are currently, for the past 30 years, in the period of the Third Industrial Revolution . And in our times, it's only heating up, with the potential to bring to some new disruptive innovations that could change our world as much as the previous two industrial revolutions had. The

Ever since the financial crisis of 2007-2009 and its subsequent (slow and modest) recovery  many have claimed the world has entered into a state of prolonged stagnation. In addition to economic growth being relatively low (and therefore not enough to close the potential GDP gap caused by the crisis), real wages are also stagnating, unemployment is still high (although in relative decline), inflation is close to zero, while productivity growth is sending troublesome signals for some time now. This is particularly true of Europe, as it bears the strongest resemblance to Japan , and is on a good course to repeat Japan's (still ongoing) two decades of stagnation (more on emulating Japan in my next text).  We all know the story. I, for one, have told it many times on the blog (see here ,  here , here , here , here , here or here ). After the financial crisis, which usually tends to cause prolonged and slow recoveries, many governments adopted stimulus and bailout programs in 2009

First of all apologies to my regular readers for not presenting our results here sooner. It's been overwhelming in the past two days - first with the prediction, then with the results, and then with the post-election frenzy.  Anyway, we gave an almost perfect prediction ! Not just a Trump victory, but also all the key swing states (PA, FL, NC, OH), and even that Hillary could get more votes but lose the electoral college vote. Here are our results as I presented them in a Facebook post on the eve of the election: For a more detailed explanation read our blog . The method is described there in greater detail, plus we call all the states. The story got covered first by the academic sources. My own University of Oxford published it as part of their main election coverage , as did my alma mater, LSE on their EUROPP blog . More news coverage soon to come! Details of our prediction  The results nevertheless came as an absolute shock to many, but it was the

My article got published today at the New Scientist ! One of the biggest science magazines in the world. See the text here ( there is no paywall, you just register and read it for free ). It was even on the front page: New Scientist website front page 03 Nov 2106 The text is about the scientific experiment behind our prediction survey . It starts by examining why the pollsters are getting it wrong lately and whether or not there is any science at all behind polling. Then it introduces our prediction survey idea and how we're doing an experiment on US elections to see whether or not science can actually improve polling.  For those who don't bother to register in order to read it on the New Scientist webpage, I have copied the text here (enjoy!): As US election looms, time is ripe for a new science of polling "Growing scepticism about traditional methods for predicting election outcomes is fuelling a search for a more scientific approach to polling, says Vuk