The best way to produce affordable housing is to follow Tokyo’s example and embrace YIMBY growth

🔍 Argument Trees

✅ Top Reasons to Agree

1. Tokyo built housing at scale through permissive zoning, keeping it significantly more affordable than comparable global cities despite similar demand pressures.
2. Supply restrictions are the primary driver of unaffordability - when we restrict housing supply through zoning, prices inevitably rise, harming precisely the young and lower-income people progressives claim to champion.
3. Democratic-controlled cities (San Francisco, LA, Seattle, Boston) have the nation's worst affordability despite decades of progressive rhetoric about helping working families - they protect wealthy homeowners' property values through exclusionary zoning while claiming to support equity.
4. Red states like Texas and Florida, with less restrictive zoning, actually deliver more affordable housing and economic mobility for young families than California or Massachusetts - exposing the policy failure of cosmopolitan liberalism.
5. Kamala Harris's housing plan explicitly embraced supply-side YIMBY reforms, proposing 3 million new units and incentives for localities to remove barriers - a sharp departure from the rent-control, demand-subsidy approach that has failed for decades.

❌ Top Reasons to Disagree

1. Tokyo's land use, culture, and infrastructure differ substantially from many U.S. metro areas - transferability may be limited.
2. If growth is not paired with protections, lower-income households may still be pushed out by gentrification and cost increases.
3. Even pro-housing reforms meet heavy opposition (NIMBYism) which slows or blocks implementation.
4. Supply isn't the only problem - high construction costs, labor, materials, and finance matter too; simply adding units may not lower prices much.
5. Focusing on supply might ignore immediate affordability needs or tenant protections, which many progressive voters prioritize.

Each reason is a belief with its own page of pros/cons, counterarguments, and rebuttals. Each argument is scored by the truth, linkage, and importance of their linked pro/con sub-arguments.

---

⚖️ Core Value Conflict

Supporting Values

Advertised:

1. Housing affordability for working families, the young, and the economically vulnerable
2. Economic opportunity and mobility - living near jobs without crushing commutes
3. Environmental sustainability through density and transit-oriented development
4. Genuine racial and economic equity in access to thriving neighborhoods

Actual:

1. Younger generations seeking access to opportunity-rich urban areas
2. Supply advocates (YIMBYs) who recognize that artificial scarcity harms the least powerful
3. Politicians like Harris willing to challenge their own party's donor class of wealthy homeowners

Opposing Values

Advertised:

1. Neighborhood character and community preservation
2. Environmental protection through limiting sprawl and "overdevelopment"
3. Protecting homeowner investments and stability
4. Democratic, local control over land use

Actual:

1. Wealthy homeowners - often white, often liberal - protecting their property values and neighborhood exclusivity under the guise of "character"
2. Political class dependency on homeowner votes and property tax revenues
3. NIMBYism masquerading as progressivism: Using environmental review, "community input," and historic preservation as tools to block housing that would benefit others

Advertised values are what supporters and opponents claim motivates their position. Actual values are what evidence suggests truly drives them, based on their actions rather than stated reasons.

---

💡 Interests & Motivations

Supporters

1. Young professionals and families locked out of urban areas where jobs are concentrated, forced into long commutes or leaving cities entirely
2. Lower-income and working-class households paying unsustainable rent burdens or displaced entirely from opportunity-rich metros
3. YIMBY advocates committed to supply growth as the evidence-based solution to affordability
4. Urban developers and builders who profit from density
5. Reform Democrats like Harris willing to challenge their party's wealthy donor base

Opponents

1. Affluent homeowners in blue metros protecting property values and neighborhood "character" (i.e., exclusivity) through restrictive zoning
2. Local governments dependent on property taxes and beholden to homeowner voters who dominate local elections
3. Progressive NIMBYs wielding environmental review, community boards, and historic preservation to block housing while claiming to support equity

Understanding interests and motivations is essential for conflict resolution. We must identify what each side truly wants and needs to develop solutions that address underlying concerns rather than surface positions.

---

🔗 Shared vs. Conflicting Interests

Shared Interests

1. Both supporters and opponents want stable communities and quality housing
2. Desire for vibrant, safe neighborhoods with access to jobs and infrastructure
3. Both sides benefit if housing costs are manageable and services are adequate

Conflicting Interests

1. Supporters want high density and fast growth; opponents want slow growth or lower density
2. Supporters prioritize access & affordability; opponents prioritize property value protection and local control

---

📜 Foundational Assumptions

Required to Accept This Belief

1. Housing affordability is primarily driven by supply constraints rather than solely by demand or cost of finance/land
2. The Tokyo-style high-density, mixed-use, transit-oriented model is adaptable to U.S. cities with appropriate reforms
3. Regulatory and zoning barriers significantly raise housing costs and must be reformed to achieve affordability
4. Progressive rhetoric without supply reform is empty hypocrisy - you cannot claim to care about young and working-class people while protecting the housing monopoly of wealthy elites

Required to Reject This Belief

1. Housing cost is mainly driven by factors other than supply (e.g., construction costs, land scarcity, labor, interest rates)
2. High-density models cannot be transplanted easily due to cultural/geographic/contextual differences
3. Zoning and regulatory controls are essential to protect neighborhood character, environment, and equity - so loosening them will harm more than help

These assumptions highlight foundational disagreements - what each side must assume to defend their view.

---

🔄 Similar Beliefs

Stronger Versions

1. All U.S. metro areas should adopt Tokyo-style density and zero zoning restrictions to eliminate housing unaffordability entirely
2. Every parcel in urban areas should be redeveloped into high-density mixed-use housing immediately

Weaker Versions

1. Moderate easing of zoning and permitting (rather than full "YIMBY") will somewhat improve housing affordability
2. Only select high-growth metro areas need embrace YIMBY growth to address affordability; others can keep traditional zoning

Grouping similar belief statements prevents fragmented debates and ensures comprehensive analysis. By grouping all the same ways of saying the same thing, we can link all the related pro/con arguments for each version of that belief. This helps avoid separate, redundant, and low-quality debates, and allows for one large, focused analysis, similar to how Wikipedia attains quality by focusing on one topic at a time.

---

🔬 Evidence & Objectivity

🧪 Top Objective Criteria

1. Housing units built per capita over time (supply growth rate)
2. Ratio of median house price or rent to median income (affordability index)
3. Regulatory burden metrics (zoning restrictions, permit delays)
4. Transit accessibility and infrastructure cost per unit of housing
5. Income stratification and access to job-rich locations for lower-income households

Measurable standards for evaluating this belief objectively, independent of personal values or preferences.

---

📂 Evidence Quality Assessment

Supporting Evidence

1. Articles noting Harris's embrace of YIMBY supply-side housing strategy
2. Evidence that zoning/permit regulation is a major driver of housing costs in many U.S. metros (housing literature broadly supports this)
3. Tokyo's housing supply model is widely cited as having kept housing cost inflation lower than many Western cities (broad urban-studies literature)
4. Comparative state data: Texas and Florida deliver better affordability than California and Massachusetts despite lower incomes

Opposing Evidence

1. Critiques of Harris's plan that it also includes rent-control or demand subsidies which may counteract supply growth
2. Evidence that building costs, land scarcity, and labor shortages are also major constraints on housing supply: simply loosening zoning may not fully solve affordability
3. Concerns that dense growth can lead to displacement, gentrification or change in community dynamics which may hurt some existing low-income households

---

📉 Cost-Benefit Analysis

📕 Potential Benefits

1. Increased housing supply should reduce pressure on rents and home-prices, improving affordability for working families
2. Better access for younger, lower-income people to job centers and transit, reducing commuting cost/time and improving opportunity
3. Stimulation of construction industry, job creation, and economic activity tied to development and infrastructure
4. Environmental gains from dense, transit-oriented development rather than sprawl (reduced car dependency, land-use efficiency)
5. Reduces the hypocrisy that some liberal/center-left parties talk about affordability but protect exclusionary zoning

📘 Potential Costs

1. Up-front costs in infrastructure, transit capacity, utilities, and local services to support higher density
2. Potential displacement of existing residents if not paired with protections (renters may be pushed out as neighborhoods increase in value)
3. Community backlash and implementation delay: political and regulatory resistance may blunt benefits or increase costs
4. Risk that new housing supply is absorbed by higher-income households or investors rather than lower-income target groups

---

🎯 Short vs. Long-Term Impacts

Short-Term

1. Initial regulatory reforms may face strong local opposition, so deployment might be slow
2. Up-front infrastructure investment and planning delays; benefits may not show immediately
3. Poor targeting may lead to new units primarily for higher incomes, so affordability gains limited initially

Long-Term

1. Over time, expanded housing supply should stabilize or reduce house/rent-to-income ratios, improving affordability
2. Job access improvements, reduced commute times, improved urban productivity and equity outcomes
3. Built learning and institutional capacity for pro-housing practices, reduced regulatory drag, more adaptive cities
4. Better alignment of housing supply with population growth and demand, reducing speculative price spikes and housing bubbles

---

🤝 Intelligent Compromise Solutions

Solutions Addressing Core Concerns

1. Pair zoning reform with inclusionary housing mandates or subsidies for low-income units, ensuring supply growth benefits all income levels
2. Establish anti-displacement protections, such as tenant relocation assistance, rent stabilization for existing residents, and preserving affordable stock alongside new build
3. Phase density increases in neighborhoods with transit infrastructure ready, to mitigate infrastructure cost and community disruption
4. Create clear community benefit agreements so local homeowners feel the value of growth (parks, transit, services) and reduce opposition
5. Use federal grants to incentivize localities to adopt pro-housing rules in exchange for funding, aligning incentives

Evidence-based solutions that address the legitimate interests of both sides, derived from cost-benefit analysis and shared concerns.

---

🚧 Primary Obstacles to Resolution

Barriers to Supporter Honesty/Compromise

1. Supporters may underestimate the scale of infrastructure investment and community transition required
2. Political incentives may favor slogans ("build millions") over implementation and equitable distribution
3. Supply-side focus may neglect immediate affordability for lowest-income households, making the claim incomplete

Barriers to Opposition Honesty/Compromise

1. Homeowners and local officials may resist growth because it threatens property values and local control; they may mis-state their motives as purely "community character"
2. Fear of disruption, traffic, school overcrowding, or changes in neighborhood may block reforms regardless of cost-benefit
3. Some local jurisdictions may lack capacity or political will to manage high-density growth, making reforms risky

Specific factors preventing each side from engaging honestly and finding mutually beneficial solutions, ranked by severity and impact.

---

🧠 Cognitive Biases

Affecting Supporters

1. Optimism bias: Underestimating how hard it is to reform zoning and build quickly
2. Availability heuristic: Citing Tokyo success without full appreciation of contextual differences
3. Confirmation bias: Selecting data that show supply matters while ignoring cost/land/finance issues

Affecting Opponents

1. Status quo bias: Preference for current home/neighborhood may over-weigh costs of reform
2. Loss aversion: Fear of losing property value or neighborhood identity may dominate rational trade-off
3. Motivated reasoning: Opponents may frame supply reforms as threat to existing community, even if long-term benefits are high
4. Moral licensing: "I voted for progressive candidates and support equity in the abstract, so I don't need to support housing in my neighborhood"

---

📚 Media Resources

📈 Supporting

Books

1. Arbitrary Lines: How Zoning Broke the American City by M. Nolan Gray
2. Freemarket Fair Housing by Stephen Smith

Articles

1. "Kamala Harris focuses on housing supply embraced by YIMBYs" (Vox, 2024)
2. "Why YIMBYs Like Kamala Harris" (The Atlantic)
3. "The Democratic Party's Housing Hypocrisy" (various sources documenting blue-state affordability failures)

📉 Opposing

Books

1. Various critiques of market-based housing approaches

Articles

1. "The Unpleasant Arithmetic of Kamala Harris's Housing Plan"
2. "Is Kamala Harris a YIMBY? Not if you read her actual housing plans"

---

⚖️ Legal Framework

Supporting Laws

1. Federal grant programs (e.g., HUD's PRO Housing) support removing barriers to housing supply
2. State zoning reform laws in some jurisdictions supporting higher density and accessory dwelling units

Contradicting Laws

1. Local zoning laws and ordinances protecting single-family zoning and limiting multi-unit construction (barriers)
2. Environmental review laws and historical preservation statutes that slow new build

---

🧭 General to Specific Belief Mapping

🔹 Most General (Upstream)

Support

1. Urban growth and density improve affordability and opportunity

Oppose

1. Preserving neighborhood character and restricting growth maintains stability and community well-being

🔹 More Specific (Downstream)

Support

1. Adopt Tokyo-style dense development, relax zoning and build large number of new units
2. Nationally implement YIMBY-friendly reforms (e.g., supply targets, zoning deregulation, transit-oriented housing)

Oppose

1. Maintain existing zoning and restrict growth in sensitive neighborhoods
2. Focus on rent subsidies and demand-side measures rather than large scale supply reform

---

📬 Contribute

📬 Contact me to contribute to the Idea Stock Exchange.

Replacing Power with Process

We have a massive problem with our political system.

It is built around doing whatever the person at the top wants. If you can climb high enough, you get to dictate the future of the planet. People say the main problem is evil people at the top who abuse kids. We must elect someone new, clean the swamp, and release the Epstein files. No? The guy at the top changes his mind? Never mind. When Republicans are in charge, they go after Democrats. When Democrats take over, they do the same in return. This is not justice or accountability. It is revenge. It is not democracy. It is tribal warfare disguised as governance.

When Trump tried to stop the transfer of power, gathered a mob, and told them the election was stolen, people called that a problem. Yet the response was not to fix the system that allowed it, but to fire individuals. That misses the point. Firing people does not fix a structure that rewards loyalty over evidence.

Our political system is built around teams. Each team has its platform, its leaders, and its enemies. One team wins and advances its agenda, then the other takes power and reverses it. Each side fights to control decisions that should belong to a process, not a personality.

What we need is a political party that replaces the idea of a platform with the idea of a process. The process must be based on cognitive analysis, open debate, and evidence. It should carry forward what the Founding Fathers started when they built systems like separation of powers, checks and balances, and judicial review. Their goal was to make decisions through reasoned procedure, not through emotion or authority.

The question we face now is simple. What process can we design that promotes good reasoning and sound decisions?

We can sidestep the old argument about whether power should rest with elites or the masses. The answer is that it should rest with reason itself. You do not need a PhD to make a valid argument. Having a degree helps only if it teaches you how to think and support your claims. What matters is not who you are but whether your reasoning holds up under scrutiny. Like Wikipedia, this approach allows everyone to contribute knowledge, but it prevents elitism by rewarding ideas that can be defended rather than names that carry authority.

Our media no longer pursues objectivity. It tells people what they want to hear instead of what they need to understand. The same problem affects social media and higher education. Connections, popularity, and algorithms determine who gets heard. The result is a system where attention is the measure of credibility, not evidence.

This is a hierarchy built around influence. The person who signs the paycheck makes the decisions. Those below follow orders. If the president decides to tear down the East Wing of the White House to install a ballroom, who will stop him? People obey because their jobs depend on it. No one pauses to debate or weigh the pros and cons. That is how authority replaces reason.

This kind of hierarchy erases the progress we made during the Enlightenment. The thinkers of that era insisted that the strength of a belief should be proportional to the strength of the evidence behind it. We have drifted away from that idea. What we need now is a political movement dedicated to bringing it back.

Imagine a public forum designed to organize every argument for and against a proposal. Each argument would be connected to its supporting and opposing arguments. Similar ideas would be grouped together so that we can identify when two people are saying essentially the same thing in different words. This prevents repetition and helps us evaluate arguments more precisely. The best arguments would rise to the top based on their logical strength and evidence, while weak or irrelevant ones would fall. This would allow us to focus on both quality and comprehensiveness.

To make this system work, we need to define objective criteria for evaluating reasoning. Each belief or argument would have measurable scores that reflect its logical quality, verification, and relevance. However, these scores would not be assigned by authority or popularity. Each score would be built from its own set of sub-arguments that argue for or against that score. In other words, every measurement of reasoning would itself be the product of reasoning.

• A logical validity score would be determined by sub-arguments debating whether the reasoning follows from its premises. Some sub-arguments might point out logical fallacies, while others defend the structure as valid.
• A level of verification score would be based on sub-arguments about how well the claim has been tested, replicated, or observed. Competing sub-arguments could challenge the reliability of the evidence or defend its strength.
• A linkage score would measure how strongly an argument or piece of evidence supports its conclusion. Its sub-arguments would test whether the truth of the evidence would actually strengthen the conclusion and to what degree.
• An importance score would be supported or opposed by sub-arguments about how central that belief is within the reasoning network and how much it influences related conclusions.
• An impact score would be shaped by sub-arguments about the real-world consequences if the belief were true.

Each of these layers of argument would feed into the overall strength of the belief being evaluated.

Together, these criteria would create a transparent, self-correcting ecosystem of reasoning. Strengthening one belief would strengthen every conclusion built on it. For example, evidence confirming that human activity causes global warming would also strengthen the argument for policies such as a carbon tax. The same framework could apply to any issue.

The purpose is not to promote one side of a debate but to organize reasoning itself. Anyone could contribute, as long as their arguments were supported by logic and evidence. The process would not require elites or connections. It would depend on clear thinking and transparency.

We have all worked under leaders who made poor decisions simply because no one could challenge them. Many rose to power through charm or connections rather than merit. They made choices that hurt their organizations, and there was no structured way to demonstrate why they were wrong. Our government operates in the same way. There is no transparent system that lets people publicly show the reasoning behind or against an action.

That is what we need to build. A process that allows people to present, test, and evaluate arguments. A system that values reason over rank. A political structure that bases decisions on transparent analysis rather than hierarchy.

The next step in political evolution is not about left or right. It is about reason itself.

Business and Politics

Business > Business and Politics

“I'll keep it short and sweet: family, religion, and friendship. These are the three demons you must slay if you wish to succeed in business.” Montgomery Burns

"When two men in business always agree, one of them is unnecessary." William Wrigley Jr.

1. Trump, Musk, and Doge focused on the wrong parts of 'making government run like a business.'
1.  ✅ Top Reasons to Agree
1. They destroyed agencies they didn’t understand, mistaking disruption for efficiency.
2. Markets work because inefficient businesses eventually fail — but in government, regulation and oversight exist to prevent destructive failures.
3. Running government like a business does not mean bringing in “your team” to arbitrarily cut what you dislike. It means defining transparent, objective criteria to measure whether agencies are meeting public needs.
4. They repeated the worst mistake of bureaucrats throughout history: assuming that power alone gave them special wisdom to know which agencies should be gutted, instead of measuring real costs and benefits.
2. DEI should have been marketed as anti-nepotism and ensuring fair competition, equal starts in public schools, and equal access to the middle class, instead of pitting groups against each other.
1. ✅ Top Reasons to Agree
3.  Mitt Romney was a better business manager than a politician — and government should run more like a business, and less like a political machine.
1.  Reasons to agree:
1.  Romney embraced the vocabulary of business — the rhythm of charts, data, and boardroom presentations
2.  He viewed waste and inefficiency almost in moral terms, as problems to be eliminated.
3.  Government should focus on results and execution, not ideology or political credit-claiming.
4. Romney openly valued analysis and data. He treated issues like transportation, healthcare, and education as analytical problems that could be fixed — much like turning around an unprofitable company. 
4. The government should not protect companies from fair regulation, competition, or failure. If you are too big to fail, then you are too big to exist.
1.  Reasons to agree:
1.  Moral hazard: Protecting giant firms rewards reckless behavior (2008 bailouts proved this).
2. Distorted markets: Propping up failing giants punishes smaller, more innovative competitors.
3. Fairness: No small business is “too small to fail.” Holding giants to a different standard is rigging the system.
5.  Many businesses add no value, no innovation, and only rent-seek and manipulate (such as insurance); these should be replaced with government programs. Likewise, government agencies proven to be wasteful should be replaced with private contractors. Admitting both can be true is a basic sign of sanity.
1.  Reasons to agree:
1.  Efficiency test: Both government and business must justify their value; inefficiency in either case should not be sacred.
2.  Real-world examples: Private contractors often outperform bloated agencies, while public programs like Social Security outperform private retirement schemes.
3.  Consistency: Admitting both scenarios are possible shows sanity and avoids ideology. 
6.  Even though George Bush had an MBA, he failed to run the government like a business and instead catered to special interests.
1.  Reasons to agree:
1.  Politicized DOJ firings: The DOJ Inspector General concluded the 2006 U.S. Attorney removals were mishandled and politically driven—poor management, not efficiency. 
2. Medicare Part D “non-interference” clause: 2003 law barred Medicare from negotiating drug prices—benefiting industry over taxpayers.  
3. Katrina leadership failure: FEMA chief Michael Brown’s qualifications and response drew withering scrutiny after Katrina.
7. The government shouldn’t protect firms from fair regulation, competition, or failure (“too big to fail” → “too big to exist”)
1. Moral hazard is real: GAO found crisis responses increased expectations of support for megabanks, weakening market discipline—classic “too big to fail.” U.S. Government Accountability Office
2. Policy community agrees: CRS summarizes why TBTF persists and why reducing it is a core policy goal. Congress.gov
8. Some sectors mostly rent-seek; replace them or fix incentives—and outsource wasteful agencies
1. Tax filing rent-seeking: For 20+ years, the tax-prep lobby blocked simpler filing (e.g., California’s ReadyReturn and the IRS’s Direct File). WIREDProPublicaNextgov/FCW
2. PBM “spread pricing” examples: State audits found hundreds of millions skimmed in opaque spreads (e.g., $224.8M in Ohio Medicaid). NASHP
3. If government is wasteful, audit & contract out: CMS is expanding audits to claw back Medicare Advantage overpayments—evidence that rigorous oversight and contracting discipline can save money. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services+1Healthcare Dive
9. “MBA” ≠ efficient governance (re: George W. Bush)
1. Politicized DOJ firings: The DOJ Inspector General concluded the 2006 U.S. Attorney removals were mishandled and politically driven—poor management, not efficiency. Office of the Inspector General+1
2. Medicare Part D “non-interference” clause: 2003 law barred Medicare from negotiating drug prices—benefiting industry over taxpayers. Connecticut General Assemblyrpc.senate.gov
3. Katrina leadership failure: FEMA chief Michael Brown’s qualifications and response drew withering scrutiny after Katrina. WIREDWikipedia
10. Both parties have corruption; GOP especially shifted from pro-market to pro-incumbent
1. Tax filing again: Industry successfully lobbied to stop government-provided, simple filing for years; many Republicans opposed Direct File in 2024. ProPublicaNextgov/FCW
2. Auto dealer protection: GOP-backed franchise bans (often bipartisan) block EV makers’ direct sales; FTC staff has urged repeal to restore competition. Federal Trade Commission+1Reuters
11. Trust-busting Republicans set the precedent (Teddy Roosevelt)
1. Northern Securities (1904): Roosevelt’s DOJ dismantled a dominant railroad holding company—defining the “trust-buster” role. theodorerooseveltcenter.org
12. Duopolies can be as harmful as monopolies
1. Credit cards: Visa & Mastercard long set swipe fees; litigation and 2024 settlement underscore market power costs to merchants/consumers. FortuneSenate Judiciary Committee
2. Airlines: GAO documents rising concentration and its effects on service and prices in many city-pair markets. U.S. Government Accountability Office
13. Lobbying by incumbents blocks efficiency-boosting innovations
1. Simple tax filing: ReadyReturn and Direct File fought by tax-prep firms despite high user satisfaction in pilots. WIREDProPublica
2. Municipal broadband: Telecom-backed state laws in ~16–17 states still restrict city networks that could add competition and lower prices. BroadbandNowUrban Institute
14. Favoring specific competitors breeds corruption and higher costs
1. Sugar program: Federal supports keep U.S. sugar prices above world prices, costing consumers ≈$1B net per year. U.S. Government Accountability OfficeEconomic Research Service
2. Jones Act protectionism: Cabotage rules shield domestic shipbuilders and raise shipping costs—classic incumbent protection. (Debated on security grounds, but many analyses flag efficiency losses.) EconofactCongress.gov
15. “Run government like a government” (serve the public, not donors)
1. Regulation with massive ROI: EPA’s Clean Air Act analyses show benefits outweigh costs by ~30:1—life-years saved, productivity up, health costs down. US EPA+1
16. Merit matters—but many start on the 50-yard line (safety nets & mobility)
1. GI Bill evidence: Post-9/11 GI Bill raised veterans’ college completion and earnings—leveling the field and boosting productivity. NBER
2. Health coverage & entrepreneurship: Research links ACA/Medicaid expansions to reduced job lock and higher self-employment for some groups. SAGE JournalsAmerican Economic Association
17. Pro-market ≠ pro-business
1. Dealer franchise bans: Good for dealers, bad for competition and consumers; pro-market policy would allow direct sales. Federal Trade Commission
2. Municipal broadband limits: Protect incumbents, not markets. BroadbandNow
18. Romney showed data-driven efficiency is possible
1. Measured outcomes: After the 2006 reform he signed, Massachusetts’ uninsured rate fell to the lowest in the nation (≈2–3%). PMCbluecrossmafoundation.org
19. “Run government like a business” doesn’t mean anti-regulation
1. Smart rules raise efficiency: Clean Air Act benefit–cost studies (retrospective and prospective) consistently show massive net gains. Congress.govlivebettermagazine.com
20. Smart regulation prevents corruption, monopolies, and consumer harm
1. Credit-card routing/fee scrutiny and antitrust actions demonstrate how rules can discipline market power and lower costs. Senate Judiciary CommitteeFortune
21. Free markets + safety nets beat purism
1. Safety nets encourage risk-taking: Evidence of entrepreneurship/job-lock reduction when people can keep coverage outside employment. SAGE Journalschir.georgetown.edu
22. Inefficiency is often deliberate because it pays someone
1. Tax complexity benefits tax-prep firms; sugar quotas benefit producers at consumers’ expense. ProPublicaU.S. Government Accountability Office
23. Efficiency helps society even if some firms lose rents
1. Air pollution controls: giant net benefits despite compliance costs for incumbent polluters. US EPA
24. Measure public services with objective criteria
1. Massachusetts reform tracked coverage and outcomes; transparency made performance visible and improvable. PMC
25. Cost-benefit beats ideology or lobbying
1. Clean Air Act playbook: decisions grounded in formal CBA delivered outsized net benefits; this is the model to replicate broadly. US EPAUS EPA