The Economist this week features an article detailing the slow growth dilemma of the US economy during this recovery period. See here.
To classical liberal political economists the situation is not all that surprising. The policies adopted -- especially since 2008, but dating back much further -- have been designed primarily with an eye toward providing short term relief from economic distress. There is an obvious political appeal for such policies, and if the economics worked out so that the trade off in terms of long term economic growth was minimal or non-existent, then objections would be muted in their force.
Unfortunately, the trade-off is real and omnipresent. Hayek often warned that politicians and the public will resist economic reform measures precisely because they entail short run pain as the previous misallocations and malcoordinated plans are recalculated. The point of public policy should be to establish the conditions that are conducive to long term economic growth, and to avoid the political football of short term remedies. I made a similar argument following Hayek in my Why Perestroika Failed, yet I also highlighted why good economics is often at odds with "good" politics -- to put it simply good economics concentrates costs on decision makers, but disperses benefits widely, while "good" politics concentrates benefits on the well-organized and well-informed special interest groups, and disperses costs to the unorganized and ill-informed masses.
The logic of politics clashes with the logic of economic reform, and thus reforms stall, the recalculation process is truncated, and long term economic growth is stalled. Rather than depression, or crisis, economics, what should be stressed is the need for ordinary economics even in the most extraordinary of times. Till that happens, short term relief measures will always be sought over policies conducive to long term economic growth.