US real GDP growth in 2036?

With a 2036 horizon, the best anchor is not the last few quarters of cyclical data but the longer-run structure of US growth: labor-force growth, trend productivity, fiscal capacity, and the economy’s historical tendency to revert toward moderate expansion rather than recession or boom. That makes a near-2% real growth outcome the most plausible center of gravity. The market’s leading bucket, 1.6% to 2.0%, fits that base case well, while the tails are still meaningful because a decade is long enough for either a productivity surge or a secular slowdown to dominate the outcome.

The strongest case for a lower-growth outcome is demographic drag, elevated debt burdens, and the possibility that productivity remains merely average after the AI cycle matures. Those forces can keep growth closer to 1% than 2% if investment disappoints or if policy becomes restrictive. Even so, the US has repeatedly surprised to the upside on productivity over long horizons, and structural innovation plus capital deepening make outright stagnation or zero growth less likely than the market’s heavy No pricing suggests.

Compared with the market, I think the No side is somewhat overstated. A 75% No price implies the market sees a broad set of negative or non-qualifying outcomes as dominant, but the historical default for the US remains moderate positive real growth, not deep weakness. If anything, the market is probably underweighting the chance that 2036 lands in one of the central positive ranges, especially 1.6% to 2.5%, even though the exact top bin is far from certain.

The main reason not to be more bullish is that 2036 is far enough away that regime change matters: a policy mistake, a financial shock, or a secular productivity disappointment could easily push growth below the most likely band. That keeps the assessment cautious rather than aggressive, but I still think the balance of evidence favors a somewhat higher Yes probability than the current market price.