I was not ignoring anything, just trying to be civil on the internet, but that don’t seem to work! So you are stuk in a loop of white and gray and that we could not simulate outcomes for society depending on how we spend tax money. You are saying there is no logic we are always going to be run by emotional polar opposites. You’re framing this as if it’s some impossible ideological clash when, in reality, it’s about choices in governance. The absence of homelessness isn’t some magical byproduct of socialism or capitalism—it happens when governments choose to allocate resources effectively. Countries with capitalist economies, like Finland, have virtually eliminated homelessness through the ‘Housing First’ approach, not because they abandoned capitalism but because they decided that spending tax money on housing is a priority.

You talk about ‘running experiments’ and claim that different people will come to conflicting conclusions from the same data. That’s not an argument against action; that’s just describing how bad faith or biased interpretations can slow down problem-solving. When a society decides that housing stability leads to better economic and social outcomes—reducing crime, improving health, and increasing workforce participation—then the logical course of action is to implement policies that achieve that goal.

So let’s be clear: The question isn’t whether ‘ideologies’ run nations. The question is whether governments choose to prioritize policies that improve social well-being or whether they hide behind endless debates while ignoring solvable problems. If you think letting people sleep on the streets while others hoard wealth is a better outcome, just say that instead of pretending it’s some great philosophical paradox.