Change is inevitable: At what rate should it occur?

True Dynamism looks to change things too quickly.Lane’s explanation of increased demand for profit is a major cause of the increasing economic gap because it explains the real estate crash in 2008; investors would repeatedly purchase properties, flip them and put the product back on the market at a higher rate. This obsession with more profit led to significantly increased risk-taking in finances and then the market crashed.

The reasoning makes sense when describing how companies have responded to the new nature of the economy since then. This new economy is the demand for constant appreciation by cutting benefits, wages and reducing frequency of raises. This actually makes sense when thinking about the approaching 1099 economy.

However, I maintain reservation towards the proposal of augmented government aggression in the regulation of the economy; it’s important to maintain job security, equal opportunity and maximize social equality, but isn’t there a line that could take away the incentive to be productive?

It is in our nature as animals to resist resistance itself. That is actually a major concern; society is trying too hard to go against our nature against change. IN other words, we as individuals are against change, but as a society, we pursue progress and the reduced practice of traditions.

So what can be taken away from this?

1.Progress cannot be stopped, so traditionalists need to get used to it.

2. If we must constantly change the status quo of our social structure, it is important to maintain a foundation for our moral behavior; this is a plea for the preservation of religion because it offers a definite answer for our existence.

3.We need science in order to further ourselves from a chaotic state.