3 ms·

I do agree that the US is rigid in its thinking. We accumulated a lot of wealth in the mid-20th century and a lot of national policy debates are around how that

by pfraze 6y ago

I do agree that the US is rigid in its thinking. We accumulated a lot of wealth in the mid-20th century and a lot of national policy debates are around how that wealth is distributed rather than about undertaking new national ventures to bring in significant new wealth. It's understandable to a degree - we have a lot to risk by taking big national projects - but it feeds into our distribution problems because we want to be capitalist but we don't have enough new frontiers for capitalism to create opportunities for the younger generations. I'd argue we're in a preservative/cost-cutting mindset rather than a generative/competitive mindset, which can be seen reflected in anti-trust policies. The philosophy has been to focus anti-trust around consumer benefit (eg lower prices) rather than to ensure competitive markets. We're more concerned with consumers' purchasing power than producers' opportunities.

zozbot234 6y ago
> a lot of national policy debates are around how that wealth is distributed rather than about [creating] significant new wealth This is a marker of a failed country - one where the collective political discourse is no longer geared towards actual social benefit but has been taken over by competing votebanks of entitled moochers, led by their uber-mooching enablers in the policy-making "elite". Acemoglu's How Nations Fail is a clear and comprehensive discussion of these dynamics.
addHocker 6y ago
Those who have wealth, have entrenched interests. Why would a coach manufactur support the automobil or the production of parts for automobils. Now, take the strucutural design flow that is privatized pensions, meaning a whole part of society can be hijacked to support openly or cladestine these entrenched interests, and the result is a political landscape that is enraged by those living outside this system - hanged up to dry. And those within, basically seeing no way they can change it, without having significant risk and loss of quality of life. Privatization has hidden costs, when applied to infrastructure. He who buys your water pipes, can hold you hostage..

by pfraze 6y ago

zozbot234 6y ago

> a lot of national policy debates are around how that wealth is distributed rather than about [creating] significant new wealth This is a marker of a failed country - one where the collective political discourse is no longer geared towards actual social benefit but has been taken over by competing votebanks of entitled moochers, led by their uber-mooching enablers in the policy-making "elite". Acemoglu's How Nations Fail is a clear and comprehensive discussion of these dynamics.

addHocker 6y ago

Those who have wealth, have entrenched interests. Why would a coach manufactur support the automobil or the production of parts for automobils. Now, take the strucutural design flow that is privatized pensions, meaning a whole part of society can be hijacked to support openly or cladestine these entrenched interests, and the result is a political landscape that is enraged by those living outside this system - hanged up to dry. And those within, basically seeing no way they can change it, without having significant risk and loss of quality of life. Privatization has hidden costs, when applied to infrastructure. He who buys your water pipes, can hold you hostage..