I don’t know why you wrote anything after “capitalist.” Ignoring human rights violations is normal capitalist behavior.
The term is honestly worse than that. It’s about how the US government can make a future war with China less economically disastrous without hurting the delicate pocketbooks of the fragile owning class in the short term.
Recognising that too much dependence on outside manufacturing on non allied countries is a strategic risk, trying to move essential manufacturing back (example: advanced electronics)
My first guess, de-risking is adding a pinch if societal relief from precarity to move away for the precipice of communist or fascist revolution, in the interest of preserving the capitalist status quo. It barely worked (combined with heavy-handed strike-busting by law enforcement) during the great depression.
『rant』
This time we have the recent history of the subprime mortgage crisis followed by nearly a trillion USD in bank bailouts, running contrary to the market forces rhetoric on which the stakeholders depended to suggest fairness.
Today, millennials and zoomers in the States have no illusions about upward mobility, about ever owning a homestead or escaping the drudgery of bottom-rung work, and also have taken on college debt in an academic system that has turned into a massive grift with false promises, and are taking on medical debt since their coverage is scant or nonexistent: the US medical system is also a grift, charging twice as much for services and supplies as anywhere else.
So we have two generations without either hope or plausible ambition, which is how you get social unrest. Our plutocrats are trying to turn this toward the rising fascist movement, with limited success. They’d really rather we not have healthcare or alternatives to sixty-hour work weeks at a pittance wage.
Out of touch ass. What the fuck is de-risking
It’s newspeak for wanting to be capitalist while ignoring human rights violations
I don’t know why you wrote anything after “capitalist.” Ignoring human rights violations is normal capitalist behavior.
The term is honestly worse than that. It’s about how the US government can make a future war with China less economically disastrous without hurting the delicate pocketbooks of the fragile owning class in the short term.
So true
Apparently all the coolest geo-political analysts are saying it
Recognising that too much dependence on outside manufacturing on non allied countries is a strategic risk, trying to move essential manufacturing back (example: advanced electronics)
My first guess, de-risking is adding a pinch if societal relief from precarity to move away for the precipice of communist or fascist revolution, in the interest of preserving the capitalist status quo. It barely worked (combined with heavy-handed strike-busting by law enforcement) during the great depression.
『rant』
This time we have the recent history of the subprime mortgage crisis followed by nearly a trillion USD in bank bailouts, running contrary to the market forces rhetoric on which the stakeholders depended to suggest fairness.
Today, millennials and zoomers in the States have no illusions about upward mobility, about ever owning a homestead or escaping the drudgery of bottom-rung work, and also have taken on college debt in an academic system that has turned into a massive grift with false promises, and are taking on medical debt since their coverage is scant or nonexistent: the US medical system is also a grift, charging twice as much for services and supplies as anywhere else.
So we have two generations without either hope or plausible ambition, which is how you get social unrest. Our plutocrats are trying to turn this toward the rising fascist movement, with limited success. They’d really rather we not have healthcare or alternatives to sixty-hour work weeks at a pittance wage.
『/rant』