I've made this case before, but it'll perhaps be more interesting to see a Professor of Economics expound such a similar view in a "deliberately provocative" essay. It's specific to the USA, but it has a lot of relevance to the rest of the developed world.
The justification for depressed growth of less than 0.5% per annum (for the bottom 99% only, the top 1% will continue to party on) for the next few decades is based on strong foundations. These are demography, education, inequality, globalisation, energy and debt.
The core of the story is his obviously correct observation that there have been three separate industrial revolutions since 1750 which have allowed growth levels to go above 1% per year in the developed world. The first was with the steam engine. The second and by far the most important one was the widespread electrification of the late Victorian era. The third and by far least important is the IT revolution which has mostly leveled off in most of the developed world.
Paul Krugman disagrees with Gordon:Originally Posted by Prof. Robert J. Gordon
I like optimism in people, but Mr Krugman's not convincing me with that. Not at all. To be expecting anything like that seems to me to be a very bad case of what James Howard Kunstler calls "techno-grandiosity".Originally Posted by Paul Krugman