You will know I think the application of the political party labels is mostly used as a distraction... with the real divisions in power being split among the parties well enough to ensure "they" exercise control no matter which party is postured as leading for the moment. There is not a dimes worth of difference between them that is deeper than the "brand" and its marketing...
As will most who choose to see things through the lens of the postured political party games... you'll thus miss a couple of elements that SHOULD generate a lot of cognitive dissonance...
I will generally agree that the Republicans in the Reagan era made a plethora of errors in terms of undermining the basic requirements for the operation of a genuine free market, through the effort made in beginning a trend of "deregulation" that really meant beginning an effort in opening the markets to the operation of a new generation of frauds which were not only generally tolerated, but encouraged as "innovation". You saw that result in the S&L debacle rapidly, and then, etc. You might also see in that context what the larger meaning was of Clinton's statement re the "era of big government" being over... as that was a statement declaring that what had begun during the Reagan era had under Clinton become the permanent supremacy of the large monied interests over others...
Note, in that context, that under Reagan it wasn't the Republicans who "undid" Glass Steagal, but the Democrats who worked to re-enable the frauds originating from Wall Street, the impact of which we see now, which they managed to accomplish by a one vote margin in the Senate, with the paid for defection by Sen Phil Grham of TX from the Republican resistance to that change.
More generally, that socialism requires spending more than it can enable in being produced means it will never work... and it cannot be "practiced wisely" unless by the ultimate rarity... an truly enlighted despot. That is why you always hear the fiction from socialists that the problem is not having the right people in charge, thus necessitating killing all those others who seek power by appear to some not to be the right ones.
Socialism is PATHETIC as a systemic level concept, which, of its design, inherently and inevitably devolves into one or another, or a hybrid of different brands of authoritarianism... with Stalin or Pol Pot not alone, making it hard to excuse them as outliers given only a bit over a century in practice. Socialism kills a lot of people, but, it isn't the mortality statistics that are the full measure of the real cost of subjecting people to the lack of freedom that socialism inherently requires.
The intrinsic error is one of scale... which makes it not different than monarchy or other forms of tribalism in the nature of its errors, although in concept it differs in requiring there be a perpetual contest for power among unchecked factions... thus requiring the occasional French Revolution type event will occur as a consequence. It is fundamentally flawed... not a concept that is useful in governance... save in the way that it IS used... which is as a political method for buying access to power and control... using other peoples money to gain power.
Beyond that, the "new" hybrid of mercantilism and socialism you describe in context of China isn't a new concept. It is the SAME variant postured by the left that we saw as socialism developed under Hitler... national socialism...
The rest is a fiction of Hobson's choice... pretending there is no known solution to the problems we face, as the entering argument is that we will not consider any change which might disrupt the trend in drift toward a planet populated by a multiplicity of Nazi Germany's.
The correct answer is "freedom" and "free markets"... which is NOT what you get from "deregulation"...
Freedom and free markets require the RIGHT rules, vigorously enforced... to ensure that trust is enabled, and that fraud is prevented as the NORM. You don't get there by enabling frauds perpetrated by the government... while factions in power tolerate them, as long as they can enable those being perpetrated by their friends...
The way out of the mess we are being backed into isn't related to the specifics in the fiscal or monetary focus being postured as distraction, as if they are where we should be looking for a solution. Instead, we should be looking at the much larger perspective, noting the need for re-enabling the benefits of free market competition vs limiting it for the specific benefit of the cronies of those in power.
The "big lie" right now... is that "deregulation" was and is about "enabling competition through free market reforms" rather than about destroying the requisite conditions necessary to HAVE a free market...
Freedom is first... its expression in the market, or the lack of it, being only one measure of the freedoms you are losing, rapidly, under the trend in place...
Relevant here, in the American context... is that I'm not the only one who understands all of that... so, elections and/or other revolutions that defeat the socialists in the Democratic and Republican parties is the shortest path to restoration of freedom... and free markets...
The politics of pretending there are no alternatives... is what binds us in the system we have...
The element of awareness that generates, is that there are elements in timing the markets are paying attention to... with the next point of transition tied to the next election...
The pace of change being implemented relative to the ability of leadership to make any change stick... is the issue.
I'm not an optimist... but, as an input in timing... you DO have to play the clock... and maintain your awareness of the potentials that are tied to the changes that might occur in X time.
You should be VERY aware of those issues... as they will relate to timing and even supercede the elements in fiscal and monetary policy that are the limit in focus of the overly myopic...
JMHO
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
AI
