think the level of uncertainty we're in now rivals that which led to 2008. Back then, we didn't know what we didn't know. Now, I think we have a decent handle on what's causing the uncertainty. So if I had to bet, when we get a correction, I don't think it will look like '08.

I'm not 100% sure what you mean by "accentuated civil unrest", but even if we agree that deregulation is a boost to economic activity, that doesn't make it good for society over time. And again, I see a shotgun rather than surgeon's scalpel approach.

I do agree with your overall point, but as long as voters like to vote with their pocketbooks, which is certainly not new, incumbents will exploit that. I think that approach is especially foolish for voters who are uncomfortable with an admin's direction generally but vote for it anyway because they like their bank account balances. That can prove to be quite fleeting.

But folks like Warren should take note. All things being equal (which they probably won't be with the rapid evolution of all these current scandals), these bold left leaning policies will attract dem primary voters, and maybe just about nobody else. Medicare for all, if she is the nominee and stays all in on that, will, I think, be the thing that defeats her. Many voters, like union members, that the dems must have to win, do not want their hard-won health benefits taken away.