Political Decisions: The Real Source of Inequality in the US
Contemporary inequality in the United States is not an inevitable byproduct of progress. While globalization and technology provide the backdrop for these changes, authors Jacob Hacker and Paul Pierson argue that political decisions shape the rules of the market game. Inequality is not the result of competition alone, but rather the specific design of the "game board" on which the struggle for capital takes place. This article explores how institutional mechanisms and deliberate legislative inaction have led to a winner-take-all system.
The Clock Metaphor: Policy Drift and Institutional Paralysis
The architecture of the American state resembles a clock metaphor with an excess of safety catches. A system designed to protect against tyranny through veto points now generates institutional paralysis (gridlock). A key concept is policy drift—a situation where the letter of the law remains unchanged, but its impact erodes because politicians refuse to update regulations to match a shifting economy. Drift differs from conversion, which involves the reinterpretation of existing rules by new actors. In this rigid framework, the filibuster has ceased to be a tool for debate and has become a routine supermajority rule (60 votes), allowing a minority to block any market-correcting reforms.
Organized Combat: The Hyper-concentration of Income Among the 1%
The phenomenon of hyper-concentration of income at the very top (primarily in finance and executive management) eludes traditional statistics. This is the result of organized combat—a clash of organizational structures rather than a mere electoral spectacle. Business holds a massive organizational advantage, possessing the ability to translate its interests into the language of complex regulations. Party asymmetry exacerbates this condition: Republicans have become a cohesive machine for blocking change, while Democrats operate within fragmented coalitions dependent on funding. Consequently, the system's lack of self-correction turns the law into a "ruin" exploited only by the best-informed players.
Three Registers of Analysis and the Culture of Success
The "winner-take-all" mechanism operates across three registers. The economic register concerns the distribution of rents (monopolistic, regulatory). The legal register involves the architecture of decision-making, where it is easier to block than to reform. The cultural register is responsible for legitimizing the system—a culture of success and narratives of meritocracy ensure that inequality is viewed as natural. This fosters systemic cynicism: the belief that the game is rigged, yet too complex to fix. For big business, this poses a risk—a lack of social stability may eventually lead to populist revolts and unpredictable regulatory shifts.
Summary: Four Conditions for an Exit and the Face of the Algorithm
Escaping the loop of paralysis requires meeting four conditions: disarming institutional blockades (filibuster reform), rebuilding social organizational counterweights, cutting off rent streams at their source, and regulating algorithms and data ownership. Indeed, the future of inequality may have the face of an algorithm, where the automation of white-collar work further decouples profits from employment. In a system where obstruction has become more profitable than repair, are we destined to drift toward the abyss? Perhaps it is time to dismantle the ruins of the law and build a new order before cynicism consumes the remaining faith in democracy?
📄 Full analysis available in PDF