Americans have the most disposable income on earth and a very high quality of life.

Trump's obvious graft, corruption, and general behavior disgust me, but why exactly would a meaningful number of people risk throwing their lives away to protest a man-baby who will be out of office in a little over 2 years if a cheeseburger doesn't get him first, and will probably be politically neutered in under 6 months?

No because he is setting an example other will follow now that they know that american citizens have no guts, pride nor morality and surrender faster than the french.

I think you will find the French are rather good at protesting and holding their government to account....

.....whereas Americans stereotypically mumble something about the Second Amendment keeping a government in check, then go back to being screwed over and launching a gofundme to pay for their chemotherapy.

> many of whom do more to establish the community you are touting than yourself

Citation needed

It looks like this is a poor attempt to argue for deregulation in the housing sector?

I agree that this is needed, but regulation would be required to compel neighborhoods to allow increased density as well...

If all the things you describe came to fruition, the current residents will have to live with the consequences of their decisions and suffer a lower quality of life (which they don't want to do), and the problem would resolve itself.

Or in reality, desirable locations remain desirable, and the current residents who had a hand in making it desirable have a right to prevent a reduction of their quality of life for the benefit of people who would prefer to live there but are unable to successfully compete with others in the housing market.

Excessive land use restrictions and downzoning inherently reduce the "compete" of the housing market, on purpose, for winners of prior cycles (frequently the deceased relatives of current owners).

Why does it matter? The data sources are cited and are publicly available.

It's basically just documenting the utter stupidity of a trade war with a close ally with whom we are tightly coupled economically.

> Why does it matter? The data sources are cited and are publicly available.

Because I don't want to click through to every data source to verify every figure and need some baseline level of trust about whether they've been correctly used.

If there's an error, I want to be able to contact the author somehow.

Because people want to turn absolutely everything into an excuse to argue about AI

I assume the data source citations are referencing Census Department API endpoints, I would make the data sources explicit by adding links.

You also might want to consider archiving the data if you aren't already given this administration's tendency to remove data that doesn't further their agenda.

Good lord. At what point do we need to just wipe the slate clean and start over?

> US healthcare system is inaccessible to close to 50% of your population

So you have no idea what you're talking about. What is the point of making comments like this that are both verifiably false with about 2 seconds of online research and just sound incorrect based on anecdotal data to anyone living in the US.

The people who avoid care they need because they can't afford it are a very small portion of the population that gets an outsized share of attention on the issue.

Until public healthcare advocates understand this and make actual attempts to convince the majority of people who are satisfied with the current system that there are benefits, the status quo will remain.

I'm not convinced that your assumption that they are a very small portion of the population holds up, but I only have the same anecdotal evidence you likely have.

Half the population does not vote. This is the problem socialists have- how do you get the underclass to exercise their power against the bourgeois?

No, the problem socialists have is that most people are smart enough to realize they won't be better off under a socialist regime, to the chagrin of the self-selected vanguard.

I'm not sure most people can actually define socialism, let alone recognize it.

Exactly. Although even if you can avoid the words they don't understand or were told to be frightened of you'd still have the problem of getting them to vote, even for policies they think would be good for them.

There are many studies from reputable sources (one being the CBO) that say it would result in almost no savings or potentially even higher costs, just like there are many studies like this one that say there will be massive savings with no reduction in quality of care.

I support universal health care, but each side just lobs whatever data supports their position at the other without any real thought. Most people in support of a universal health care system seem to be completely unaware that the vast majority of households are happy with their current coverage (whether they should be or not isn't relevant really) and are not looking for someone who claims to know better to "improve their medical care" through a entity (the US federal government) that is generally not known for improving almost any situation it interacts with.

I personally would like to see Medicare opened up to the public as an option. It's simple, doesn't require anything of anyone who doesn't want to participate, and should be a reasonable test for the claims of cost savings. If it's truly a better option, people will move to it. If not, then the conversion will not happen.

Barring some sort of catastrophic financial or medical event, there is a 0% chance that anyone can make a radical change to the status quo.