Stay Gold, America

>there are good people of means out there trying to make humanity better.

They are certainly good, but naive(In some sense I'm happy that they are naive).

The quality of our lives settles down to the lowest common denominator. Good, smart people do make a difference but generally these are blips of good times compared to vast stretches of bad times.

> It's so so hard not to be cynical.

Certainly would agree with that, however you'll have plenty who would suggest that helping others achieve the American dream isn't part of their worldview, or indeed their interpretation of that American dream.

"Apes together strong"

Even Koba learned to hate.

And, despite the last movie ending on uplifting note, the very end showed the humans in a bunker ready to attack again.

Nothing survives the fight for resources. In-Group/Out-Group.

It will take some real tragedy to bring Left/Right back together. Like a real (more severe) virus where Republicans are like "wow, we be dying, I'm all for distancing now, get away from me, where are the scientists, give me a mask".

Poland is a wrong example, it had almost 30 years on uninterrupted growth and has better infrastructure and services than the nearby Germany.

Trains are cheaper, better run and more comfortable. Highways are better than German. Even gas stations. I often find myself waiting to cross the border so I can get to the loo in the first Orlen on the Polish side.

And don't let me start on housing and taxes.

Polish economy even benefitted from the Russo-Ukrainian war:

1. 36 mln-strong Poland welcomed 1mln of mostly well-educated, hardworking Ukrainians.

2. Its military expenses are now double what the US spends in relative terms, giving a non-negligible boost to civil economy.

Gosh, it's been a few years I dress exclusively in Helikon-Tex, instead of Patagonia )

It depends what matters to you in quality of life. For me the most important things are having purpose and love in my life - and you can find that pretty much anywhere.

A bit unrelated but US citizens decided that healthcare doesn’t really matter to them much but going everywhere with a nice car does - so it depends what the priorities are

This is such a good point, i've had similar thoughts before. That basically after the "middle income" level countries don't really get "better" they just get more expensive and more developed (which to be sure does have some positive impacts)

I’d be very careful with this kind of comparison: Often the differences show up in weird places.

For example, I travel between two countries with similar lifestyles and consistently notice lower quality of goods in the country with the lesser-valued currency. It’s subtle enough that you might not notice: Smaller quantities, not quite as good as, fully assembled versus some assembly, etc. Modern industry has gotten really good at masking these changes, and local consumers just don’t know that it can be better.

Poland is perhaps not the best example, by GDP PPP per capita standards they're not much poorer than the US. I would expect life to be comparable.

Everything is more expensive in the USA is quite an exaggeration. Being able to afford (better) consumer goods/services/experiences is quite nice in itself not to mention the quality of opportunities present. I don't see many people emigrating from rich countries either.

House prices in Poland can be higher than in the US (for a comparable size and location).

Poland is a rich country compared to most of the rest of the world (my country included). Your reference point is way off.

There are many more parties in the US though - they just don’t get really relevant in the bigger scheme of things.

In my country we also have 2 huge parties and a bunch of smaller ones - but the smaller ones have more impact and actually matter a bit.

Democracy is hard and there are so many details and complexities to consider.

But to answer your question I would say definitely the US is a democracy -

You need to factor in member’s ability to “cross the aisle” and the power of the party whip. In the U.S. members can vote against their party’s legislation without instantly being thrown out of the party.

Lessig in books and talks explained it very well, why reliance on money - people and corps funding parties and candidates - in elections keep the elections elitist and undemocratic. It needed reform and it still needs reform, more than ever.

I naively hoped that his well laid out arguments would make a difference, but here we are much later and it didn't help a single bit.

There are many parties, generally referred to as "third parties", but there are also many systems working to ensure that only the two parties everyone knows about have any power. First-past-the-post is a big part of the problem, and both parties campaign against alternatives like instant-runoff and ranked-choice voting. The "Big Two" also control televised debates, and have consistently raised requirements for participation in order to exclude other parties. The big parties, big corporations and the big media are all aligned in this, refusing the discuss third parties except in terms of spoilers. People who might vote for a third party are routinely reprimanded for helping the other big party win.

The other option is to try to change a party through the primary process, but the Democratic party in particular has a process very well insulated against public influence. "Super Delegates" (party insiders) until very recently had open and official votes that could easily override a choice by primary voters. In a lawsuit filed after the Democratic Party fought to ensure Hillary Clinton beat Bernie Sanders, a leading member the Democratic Party argued, in court and under oath, the that party was a private organization and had NO OBLIGATION to use any kind of democratic process to chose its nominee. In this last election they didn't even have a primary.

I live in the U.S., I vote, at best I consider it a very flawed, or perhaps well controlled, democracy. In many cases a majority of voters prefer policy changes that are simply off the table for both major parties. Examples are things like winding down the war on drugs, ensuring abortion access, and raising the minimum wage. Neither party will do anything about these issues at the national level, and any progress being made is at the state level - largely in states that have a ballot initiative process where voters can (in some ways) bypass the usual party-controlled political process.

If the parties were static sure, but they ebb and flow with the voters. Trumpism came out of seemingly nowhere now the entire GOP is all aboard, it’s effectively a completely different party compared to 10 Years ago.

>admits only two parties cannot be called a democracy

'Democracy' itself is a charade to pacify the masses.

How can housing prices drop if most people invest most of their wealth into their house and they expect a return on the investment?

We're using GoFundMe as a bandaid for healthcare, to the degree that the CEO went to beg Congress to pass more government assistance in COVID-laden 2021.

https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/538399-gof...

What would fix the problem? And what is the root cause?

> Or basically 34% of adults in America exercise their right not to vote.

Maybe. Or they were unable to for any number of reasons, like not being able to get the time off work, for example. Compulsory voting does not mean you can't abstain, or shouldn't, but it does eliminate the people who want to vote, but for legal/logistical reasons, were unable to.

It’s the opposite of ironic. He’s against the concentration of wealth, so he’s given away much of his wealth and is pledging to continue to do so.

Can you suggest an organisation that does?

> where I suppose we will celebrate bank robbers?)

The popularity of Luigi Mangione might be a (arguably sickening) sign that the pitchforks are coming (and, remember, it's always very presumptuous to assume you will be on the right side of the pitchforks.)

But also, if history is to be followed, some form of self correction is always possible.

It's going to be popular to run on a "tax the ultra-ultra-rich" platform. The trick is to be very careful on every other topic, to avoid being trapped in culture war. Basically, someone might run on the single issue of "tax the right", and strive to avoid anything radical on every hot-button subject (as in, be extremely centrist and borderline conservative on gender, immigration, culture, free speech, etc....). When in doubt, shut up and remind everyone you're going to tax the ultra-ultra-ultra rich, purely appealing to the inner sense of justice.

This would work better in countries where the press is not too concentrated. And I am actually curious to see how social media would handle that (it would create engagement, so maybe the merely ultra-ultra rich would play along ?)

> French Revolution style future.

Careful what you wish for - it took us a century to get to a stable place.

If I had to pick which fictional world our future looks most like it would be Elysium. Maybe not a space station, but we're quickly bifurcating into a world where a top elite of billionaires live in absolute luxury, safely segregated away from the rest of the world who scrapes by in misery and poverty. There was no middle class in Elysium. So many people who will be in the misery group support this future because somehow they've been convinced they'll be in the elite group.