to your point: “The last 30 years has seen an astonishing transformation of America. We may have to face the fact that there are underlying structural changes in our demography and social attitudes which may preclude our ever regaining the edge we once held.”

these lovely people decided to announce their presence in ’73..
see: “The Trilateral Commission was formed in 1973 by private citizens of Japan, Europe (European Union countries), and North America (United States and Canada) to foster closer cooperation among these core democratic industrialized areas of the world with shared leadership responsibilities in the wider international system. Originally established for three years, our work has been renewed for successive triennia (three-year periods), most recently for a triennium to be completed in 2009.
…

Two strong convictions guide our thinking for the 2006-2009 triennium. First, the Trilateral Commission remains as important as ever in helping our countries fulfill their shared leadership responsibilities in the wider international system and, second, its framework needs to be widened to reflect broader changes in the world. Thus, the Japan Group has become a Pacific Asian Group, and Mexican members have been added to the North American Group. The European Group continues to widen in line with the enlargement of the EU. We are also continuing in this triennium our practice of inviting a number of participants from other key areas.

The “growing interdependence” that so impressed the founders of the Trilateral Commission in the early 1970s is deepening into “globalization.” The need for shared thinking and leadership by the Trilateral countries, who (along with the principal international organizations) remain the primary anchors of the wider international system, has not diminished but, if anything, intensified. At the same time, their leadership must change to take into account the dramatic transformation of the international system. As relations with other countries become more mature—and power more diffuse—the leadership tasks of the original Trilateral countries need to be carried out with others to an increasing extent.”
http://www.trilateral.org/about.htm

Their fellow travelers are talking, for publication, about:
• How the Financial Crisis Will Weaken the West
by Roger C. Altman

The financial crisis has called into serious question the credibility of western governments and may precipitate an eastward shift of power.

Listen to this essay on CFR.org »

• A New Trade Agenda
by Mattoo & Subramanian

Trade problems are an underlying cause of the financial crisis. To truly revive the world economy, a new trade consensus is necessary.

• Who Broke Global Finance?
by Harold James

The current economic crisis may have one winner: the Chinese financial model, which — together with the IMF — holds the keys to fixing the problem.
http://www.foreignaffairs.org/

and, yes, correlation not, necessarily, = to causation

I think you can add in the massive subsidies that will be paid to legacy industries.

Another thing that will be dragging this country down is the size of our government. There are to0 many dependent persons getting government checks, whether through welfare, as bureaucrats, or as affirmative action hires. The last 30 years has seen an astonishing transformation of America. We may have to face the fact that there are underlying structural changes in our demography and social attitudes which may preclude our ever regaining the edge we once held. Time will tell.

I didn’t cite a law, just a fact which happens to be a mathematical certainty. Sorry if that phrase rubs you the wrong way.

I wasn’t familiar with the universal accepted law of “by mathematical certainty,” but now that I am, it seems like a good candidate to explain lots of numerical phenomena. Thanks!

Also, re: supply side economics, and specifically the resultant reduction of personal income tax rates, I submit that although I’d personally rather pay 30% than something much higher than that, it would clearly incent me at a corporate officer level to keep corporate profit in the corporation at, say, a 35% corporate tax rate rather than disbursing it to executives at a 50-70% personal income tax rate. In other words, when personal tax rates were much higher, you didn’t see 8- and 9-figure compensation packages being doled out like you do now. The name of the game is ALWAYS, first and foremost, tax avoidance, so if you want to limit executive compensation, just friggin’ jack that upper tier of personal income tax. Every single one of these “bailout” recipients would be far, far better off right now if they had not paid hundreds of billions of dollars to their executives in compensation over the past couple of decades. And so would America.