[spacemadness]

Yes. The cheesy “disruption is always good” is cutthroat SV capitalist kool-aid. It CAN be good, but just assuming it is good because disruption is dogmatic at best. Especially in a country with near to zero safety net. The consumer always wins is a fairy tale.

[_DeadFred_]

Wish you would have broken out the reality that disruption plus zero safety net = some people made homeless, some people commiting suicide, lots of people going hungry. The reality that a large amount of people 'disrupted' later in life don't recover to where they were.

[csallen]

You can believe in disruption and innovation and a stronger social safety net at the same time. These aren't opposing ideas. In fact, they're complementary ideas, because countries with competitive and innovative markets have a higher GDP and thus more funds to support a stronger social safety net. The opposite is also true -- countries that are low in productivity and innovation have lower means to lift their own people out of poverty.

We have a goose that lays golden eggs. We should be using the gold to do good things instead of trying to kill the goose.

[_DeadFred_]

Sure you can have both. But we don't.

[csallen]

Which is why it perplexes me that so many people are focused on trying to tear down the good thing we have, instead of fixing the broken thing.