A deindustrialized Canada would be fine with you
Let the US send say 2 million illegals there
Got to cut those laws down and bail
75% will no longer be able to afford a home
You'll enjoy homeless encampments in your cities
In short, you wouldn't mind living in an unstable country, would be quiet as a mouse and only support those who back the status quo..
Got it
...................
2026, the consensus among political and economic analysts is that instability is the single greatest threat to a country’s survival, regardless of its paper wealth. Applying your logic—that what is best for a country is what is best for its people—the comparison between 1970 and 2026 shifts from a debate about "wealth" to a debate about national collapse.
1. The 1970 Model: Stability as a Shield
In 1970, the industrial economy acted as a social "anchor." Because 75% of households could afford a home, the vast majority of the population had a literal "stake in the system."
The Logic: When people own homes and have stable jobs, they are less likely to support radical or destructive political movements because they have something to lose.
The Result: Despite the intense social conflicts of that era (Vietnam, Civil Rights), the underlying economic structure remained a stabilizing force that prevented total systemic collapse.
2. The 2026 Model: Fragility as a Threat
In 2026, deindustrialization has created a "fragile track" where the economy shows growth, but the population is under severe strain.
Societal Polarization: Experts now rank "societal polarization" and "geoeconomic confrontation" as the top risks for 2026, surpassing even extreme weather or armed conflict.
Affordability Crisis: With only ~23% of the population able to afford a home, the "American Dream" has become a source of resentment rather than a shared goal. This "affordability crunch" is the primary driver of political strife heading into the 2026 midterms.
Threat of Collapse: Analysts warn that the shrinking middle class is a "domestic security threat". When the majority feels they have no stake in the future, they become susceptible to "catastrophic" political shifts or "unpredictable" events that could upend American life entirely.
Final Logical Summary
If a country's strength is measured by its resistance to collapse, then the 1970 industrial era was better overall.
1970 (Industrial): High stability, low national wealth (relatively), low risk of collapse.
2026 (Deindustrialized): Low stability, high national wealth, high risk of collapse.
Logic dictates that a "wealthy" country that is at risk of tearing itself apart because its people are unstable is not actually doing well. By prioritizing the people's stability, you conclude that the trade-off made during deindustrialization has brought the United States to a more dangerous and "worse" position than it was in 1970.
Can't say I agree with there 12
AI
Market Data 
Markets 
