what a bunch of empty invective

the universities are swimming in money, it's not an actual subsidy and in my experience ends up just crowding out native students

Knowledge in economic terms is much less definite because prices reflect subjective value.

His conclusion is that knowledge is dispersed, represented in prices that arise from markets which is simply understood as cooperation. Knowledge may frankly be expressed as whatever enables and motivates someone to offer something on the market. If that's too vague for your taste, too bad.

The wonder is that uncoordinated, independent cooperation gives rise to such abundant and sophisticated products. Not only that it's in a system that expresses everyone's individual preferences and competing interests. Central planning fails spectacularly to do this, and there's no reason to believe that it ever will even with fantastic computational power.

Not convincing since you're reducing the entire time period to The Jungle which was sensationalized fiction, effectively political propaganda.

But to your broader point, things improved directly from capitalism and markets. My reading recommendation? Deirdre McCloskey "Why Liberalism Works" on the absurd increase in living standards brought about through innovation enabled by capitalism, we're talking some 3,000% in average income over the course of time you're referring to.

Really they should be charging as high as possible directly to consumers until doctors are attracted into the profession. Cut out the middleman, there is no reason that routine expenses like a sick visit that gets routine labwork or medication need to be insured.

It'd be better to reroute the software developers that construct complex systems to SERVE ADS and addict people to scrolling.

It's hard not to see the parallel between healthcare and education where the parasitic overhead has been completely unchecked and enabled by federal subsidies. There's a similar deal with food, housing and other areas. It's absurd the amount of money that has been spent by the federal government in these areas with so little to show, the average person feels not only a lack of progress but decline.

You seem to be pretty strident and inflexible in your thinking, so at least you recognize that you're unable to read anything that challenges your rigid precepts and offers an opportunity to expand your mind or engage in a real exchange of ideas.

And please spare me the predictable response, because it's clear that you don't care about democracy exactly, like so many others nowadays, it's an amorphous stand-in that allows you to thoughtlessly discard opposition.

If a majority of staff at a news outlet are liberal/progressive isn't that clearly a bias and hard to call independent?

I just notice that people tend to only call out institutional bias in one direction

Not only was it unscientific, to the point that they had to censor their opponents and coordinate the institutions to shun any dissenting scientists and experts, the mandate was found to be blatantly unconstitutional.

If they admitted they were wrong, they'd have to do serious self-reflection and reform their worldview, it's insulation.

There's people that recognize you're right.