3 ms·
I dislike this article because of its fatalistic tone. The opinions of the average guy on the street haven't changed. They still want a society where people g
by jellicle 15y ago
I dislike this article because of its fatalistic tone. The opinions of the average guy on the street haven't changed. They still want a society where people get paid decently for working, where there is a social safety net, where anyone can go to the doctor without going bankrupt. NONE of these opinions have changed in the American people. Nor has the work dynamic fundamentally changed. America still produces tons of shit.
But the opinions of the American leadership elite have changed. A dysfunctional one-party system is the problem, and the result is a consensus view - among the Washington elite only - that the rich need to get richer and everyone else needs to get poorer. It doesn't have to be this way. But change isn't going to come from inside the Beltway.
This can change, and will, eventually. The question is how far will Americans let these crooks go before demanding something better.
- hallmark 15y agoI don't think this article is fatalistic any more than an environmentalist thinks our planet is going to hell or any other activist thinks there is a very serious issue that needs attention. Mark Sigal provides a lot of food for thought. Though a lot of Americans feel that we're in a serious repression or depression, the complexities of the financial crisis make it difficult for many people to even begin to understand or support a proper solution. With so many of our brightest grads being sucked directly into Wall Street firms, it's not surprising that the convoluted and opaque characteristics of risky financial instruments would cause the average and even above-average citizen to have difficulty knowing how to vote for an effective fix. We're better off for having talented writers, journalists, and filmmakers do their utmost to discuss these topics.