Yet it seems to me at least, that you are taking the extreme position. People are arguing for nuanced improvement, and discussing what issues may arise.

You're essentially saying "Enough talk, do random things". In fact, you're saying "do almost anything", which is quite extreme.

The point I made in the other sub-thread, is that many many other countries did that very thing. Whether by revolution, or elected and then massive change, these countries ended up with utter devastation, and in some cases 100% poverty.

I get you're frustrated. Fair enough. But waving away how difficult these issues are, just isn't workable.

To that end, I see people criticize:

* low interest rates

* high interest rates

* 0 interest rates

* quantitative easing

* methods to prevent bank collapses

* methods to reduce the depth of a recession

* methods to slow economic growth (reign in inflation)

Quite literally, no matter what anyone does, people are yelling "Idiots!" at the result. Meanwhile, the results compared to other nations aren't horrible.

I 100% agree that we need to look at ways to reverse the trend of wealth equity. But to say it's just simple and easy, just snap your fingers and try stuff?

No way.

And the wrong results can be utterly disastrous.

If we examine the set of 'many other countries', does it consist 90% of dictatorships, that were already in poverty, and the methods chosen 70% violence?

What if, the aim of these actions was never to improve the economy, but instead was to consolidate power for the dictatorship in question and to remove elites that could pose competition?

What if the set of 'many other countries' is a very unfair example? The author is not suggesting violence, and we do not live in dictatorship?

Whilst the strongman and his cronies may only want power, a democracy can collapse because its citizens do not see the danger.

They may give special powers, or ignore weakening of key institutions, because he is "fixing things" with a strong arm and will.

And by weakening key parts of a democracy, it leaves it more open, susceptible to a strongman to succeed in subverting the current state.

Maybe even decades away.

Many areas of the world were democratic, and fell into this trap, and are now stuck there.

Some have tried to go back to democracy, or forge a democratic state for the first time, and fall due to this same fallacy.

Change is not fast enough, so "just do something, anything!".

So yes, my comparison is completely fair.