In times of economic inequality, people are psychologically driven to vote for policies that punish a perceived enemy—like the wealthy or immigrants—rather than those that directly aid the poor. This powerful emotional desire for anger and a villain fuels populist leaders.
A neuroscience study revealed that when subjects could choose an emotion to have stimulated in their brains, they universally chose anger. This is because anger provides a feeling of clarity and purpose, eliminating the uncomfortable states of anxiety and uncertainty that people hate.
A cultural shift toward guaranteeing equal outcomes and shielding everyone from failure erodes economic dynamism. Entrepreneurship, the singular engine of job growth and innovation, fundamentally requires the freedom to take huge risks and accept the possibility of spectacular failure.
While AI systems can deliver personalized instruction more efficiently than humans, they cannot replicate the uniquely human role of a teacher. The most impactful teachers are remembered not for the curriculum they taught, but for the belief, purpose, and inspiration they instilled in students.
The widespread feeling that the system is "rigged" stems from specific government policies. Deficit spending and inflation systematically devalue labor and make key assets like homes unaffordable, robbing non-asset holders of their ability to build wealth and achieve upward mobility.
The most effective solution to the housing crisis is to radically increase supply by removing restrictive zoning and permitting laws. Government interventions like subsidies often create market-distorting bubbles, whereas a free market allows builders to meet demand and naturally stabilize prices.
According to hedge fund manager Ray Dalio, the only historical path out of a terminal national debt cycle is a "beautiful deleveraging." This requires a painful but precisely balanced mix of austerity, debt forgiveness, wealth taxes, and printing money to avoid societal collapse.
An entrepreneurial view of public goods dictates that any service should generate more value than its costs. If a division, like public transit, consistently loses money, it's a market signal that society doesn't value it at its current price. Subsidizing it is an emotional, not a logical, decision.