The Global Disappointment
Democratically elected governments in the UK, US, and OECD countries are significantly less popular than they were decades ago. This isn't isolated to any particular country—it's a global phenomenon. The question is why? Why would disconnected countries that don't share political systems or history suddenly all experience increasing discontent with their elected officials?
The answer lies in what Cecil calls "late capitalism"—a logic that has captured governments worldwide.
Captive Governments
Politicians genuinely want to be liked. It makes their jobs easier. They want to do popular things that make voters happy, win elections, and enjoy the resulting approval. But something has gone wrong. Politicians now feel compelled to do things that make populations unhappy—and they don't understand why.
Cecil argues this isn't just standard corruption—though financial giants certainly spend enormous sums buying influence through elections, owning media outlets, and smoothing political gears. That historical corruption is nothing new; people have bribed politicians forever.
The more profound problem is different: the very people making up governments have been captured by late capitalist logic they can't escape. They don't even recognize they're trapped anymore.
The Technocratic Elite
This manifests through technocratic elites worldwide—people like French president Emmanuel Macron, who was a venture capitalist before entering government. Treasury secretaries, labor departments, and countless others share this outlook: grow the economy, cut taxes, keep bond markets happy, and everything will work.
These people believe the same thing: if you do these things correctly, prosperity follows. But something's wrong with this theory.
The Productivity Paradox
Here's where the argument gets interesting. Both left and right agree on certain facts: they argue about wealth inequality and how to address it. The left says workers' productivity has been siphoned off by wealthy owners—redistribution can fix this. The right claims productivity grows everyone's pie—deregulation creates incentives for innovation.
But here's the problem with their shared assumption: is productivity actually growing? The data suggests it's not.
GDP per capita shows the US economy is three times larger than in 1970; most of Europe is about twice as large. On paper, this looks spectacular. But governments keep saying they have no money—they can't do what people need.
Cecil argues this reveals the productivity story isn't true—or at least not true in the way people think.
The Sectors Behind the Numbers
Seven sectors represent 75-80% of the US economy—the largest employers where most people work: manufacturing, retail trade, professional services, government, leisure and hospitality, healthcare, and construction. How has productivity changed over the last 20-30 years?
Construction has significantly declined—less productive than decades ago. Healthcare remains stagnant or declining. Leisure and hospitality is flat. Government is flat. Professional services shows only tiny growth. Retail trade has moderate growth from efficiency improvements like GPS-guided delivery.
Manufacturing, which shows higher growth, has achieved this by laying off workers through automation.
Six of seven major economic sectors have either negative growth, no growth, or minimal helpful growth. Manufacturing alone can't keep the economy growing for everyone.
What This Means
The productivity gains exist on spreadsheets—in automated agriculture and manufacturing—but don't translate to good jobs or affordable products. Workers are fired while efficiency numbers look impressive. The food supply chain shows spectacular productivity growth in commodity production, but grocery prices remain high and quality low.
This is why governments keep forcing populations to accept unpopular policies: they believe the economy is growing, workers are becoming more productive, and wealth is abundant—but somehow they can't make things work. The narrative falls apart when examined closely.
Counterarguments
Critics would point to actual GDP per capita growth—three times larger than 1970 in the US—as evidence the economy genuinely grows. They might also note productivity measurement in sectors like healthcare is notoriously complex and easily misinterpreted.