I interpret your response to suggest that taking risks comes with consequences and that most of the time those consequences are negative.
My question was meant to ask (in a round-about way) why collectively we don't subsidize risk-taking (especially when the risk-takers have a track record of producing neat things)?
I interpret your response to suggest that taking risks comes with consequences and that most of the time those consequences are negative.
My question was meant to ask (in a round-about way) why collectively we don't subsidize risk-taking (especially when the risk-takers have a track record of producing neat things)?