It's a question that deserves an answer, and the answer has six parts:

1. Any meaningful systemic reform threatens an entrenched, self-serving interest/elite which has a tremendous incentive to squash, co-opt or water down any reform that threatens their monopoly, benefits, etc.

2. It's far cheaper in cash and political capital to block something than it is to push through a reform that reduces the skims and scams of entrenched, self-serving interests.

3. Entrenched, self-serving elites are disconnected from the real world of the commoners; they live in protective bubbles, from you-can't-fire-me job security to gold-plated healthcare to generous pensions to access to central bank credit lines-- all of which is unavailable to the commoners wearing yellow vests. As a result, their grasp of the real problems is unrealistic, as the real-world experience of the bottom 90% is an abstraction.

4. Entrenched, self-serving elites are protected from the disastrous consequences of their policies and self-serving greed. In Taleb's terminology, they have no skin in the game: policies can be complete failures but nobody's fired, and nobody's pay is cut.

5. The Neofeudal "fix" to all crises, and social and financial problems--enriching the already rich and empowering the already powerful--signals the entrenched elites that the system is working just fine: if it's working great for me and my cronies, so clearly it's working great for everyone.

6. The corporate media and the social media giants are entrenched interests, and so it serves their interests to ceaselessly promote the status quo Neofeudalism as the cat's meow and marginalize dissenters, skeptics and reformers.

more

https://www.oftwominds.com/blogdec18/entrenched-elites12-18.html