Ian Welsh has a list lamenting where we are economically. Can’t say I agree with all of them, but it’s worth reading and arguing over. This one leaps out:

 19) Stirling Newberry says, and I agree, that none of this is stable, but it will last as long as the majority of the baby boom, the silents and a good chunk of the Xers still think they can hang on to their little piece of the pie, and screw everyone else.  It will most likely break down in 2020/24, which is when the demographics turn.  Young people today are completely screwed, they have astronomical student loans, no or shitty jobs, can’t afford a house and can’t afford to start a family.  Note that the places where revolutions, peaceful or otherwise, are happening, are places where the majority of the population is young.  Latin America, the Middle East.

Eh? Readers?

This one gets right to the heart of why I have so much trouble mustering enthusiasm for this presidential election:

5) the failure to force the rich to take their losses and to break up the banks means that the same people who caused the 2007/8 financial crisis still control the economy and the government. [Emphasis mine — RD]

Rebecca Trotter said something true and important in one of the comment threads here earlier today. If memory serves — it’s late, and I’m not going to look it up again, but I’ve been thinking about it since I read it — Rebecca said the problem with Mitt Romney is that the Bush administration’s policies on the economy and foreign policy were disastrous — and neither Romney nor his party have given any serious indication that they have learned from them, and won’t be doing that again. I have zero interest in a second term for Obama, but less than zero interest in a third term for George W. Bush.