dckingsfan wrote:What has happened is rapid change. What has happened is that our political systems have not been very good at quickly adapting to the change (but market forces have been). Neither the current conservatives and R establishment or the current liberals and D establishment have been able to move toward a political approach that favors free-market capitalism or deregulation. Nor have they been able to move toward a reduction in government spending (where the programs have not worked).
I look at this a little differently. Changes has happened whether anyone has wanted it or not. Because the change has happened so fast, we've seen a lot of the economy attempt to co-opt government to try to stymie that change and governments, who have largely struggled to adapt to quick changes at any point in history, have struggled even more because of it. The end result is that we've seen the response to change as one that largely benefits the existing economy and when it doesn't, you see government bailouts which are another means of propping up the existing economy and stymying change insofar as is possible.
This isn't new, either. Just, as you say, the pace of change has been accelerated of late. Social media in particular is a revolution in communication that we don't fully understand yet and the internet has gone from being a novelty that only a few sections of society used at a set desk to a much more widespread and all-encompassing idea that can now be carried with you in your pocket. The advent of the printing press, translations of the bible, etc. caused all sorts of schisms and wars and such. There are just way more people now, and way more destructive power as a species so the stakes are higher than ever.
I think a truly unregulated market is dangerous. I'm for far more streamlined and enforceable sets of regulations that are far better enforced. And I also think we need to rethink the idea that governments should stay out of the economy where necessary and recognize that it's something that needs to work both ways. We also need to keep the economy out of government to a point. Governments being guided by successful businesses of today is a great recipe for stymying change and preventing the great businesses of tomorrow. We don't necessarily want decisions being made in government that are better for the existing economy in the present because it means that we won't be so readily capable of taking advantage of change as it happens. The earlier countries unchain themselves from a reliance on fossil fuels, the better off they will be economically, socially and medically in the future. Nobody wants to pay today for something they'll get tomorrow, though. They'd rather have now and pay a much steeper price later, and so we get what we get.
), Yang (+1), Booker (+2 
