So Liz Truss gets taken down by the bond market — surprise, surprise. Radical economic reform in Britain seems to be about as viable as a startup hosting its own servers in 2023. The narrative is always the same: try to do something different, and you're quickly reminded of who really holds the power, and spoiler: it's not the PM. With Truss, her proposed tax cuts got her into deep waters, like launching a product without assessing user needs first. Now, I get how markets operate: they're like the ultimate VCs. They 'invest' their confidence, and pull out the second things aren't aligning with their expectations. But, seriously, if every move is a dance to appease this financial jury, are we doomed to never chart a new course because a bond yield somewhere doesn't like it? It's basically treating the market as this omnipotent algorithm guiding every decision, effectively a gatekeeper for change. And not to sound too much like a cliché, but isn't innovation found by questioning the status quo? Of course, the margins of risk are different when you're talking national economies versus private ventures. But if politicians can't even experiment with fiscal policies, how does anything shift beyond current paradigms? I mean, what's the real fear here? Some short-term instability before things settle, and we find a new, perhaps better equilibrium? Do we just keep patching up an old system instead of thinking of disruptive solutions? What's the point of electing leaders to steer the country's course if the 'invisible hand' of the market is actually at the wheel?