4 ms·
I liked his idea that the common American is stuck at the loser-end of a system of "asymmetric risk." Americans are expected to take on more and more "personal
by kinsomo 8y ago
I liked his idea that the common American is stuck at the loser-end of a system of "asymmetric risk." Americans are expected to take on more and more "personal responsibility" (i.e. risk) for healthcare, for securing income, etc. and that means they're subject to all the consequences of any failure.
On the other hand the powerful and wealthy monopolize the rewards of risk, and broadly refuse to share it. However, they have such large cushion (and connections) that they never really took any personal risks at all. If they fail, they'll probably be fine (except maybe with some hurt feelings).
- jorblumesea 8y agoThe rich (and their lobbyists) write the laws. The system is set up this way intentionally. The public subsidize the risks of the wealthy while brainwashing the lower classes to accept these risks as their "lot in life". It's not some crazy accident, the game is rigged. You can see this play out in the bank bailouts, the new tax laws and various other policies. America is a country for the rich with rules written by the rich.
- Chyzwar 8y agoThere are other factors. The US is a big sparsely populated country that is relatively far from business partners. Military dominance is required to continue a current foreign relationship and protect global corporations originated in the US. Even Obama manage to only make a tiny turn to the left. The US is like Titanic, too big to make drastic turns and cannot afford to slow down. Larger geopolitical plays influence US more than social rich vs poor. Look how China outmaneuver the US with peaceful foreign policy making military complex useless. Free trade that allowed to move/outsource low-value manufacturing now is turned against the US when technology advantage is shrinking.