Table of contents: 

• Radical Reform Policies Overview 
• Radical Reform vs. Project 2025 (10 Year)
• Radical Reform 2006 (10 Year)
• Simulation Roadmap

Radical Reform vs Project 2025

Introduction. The United States is facing mounting evidence that its political system is due for significant reform. Public trust in the two major parties is eroding – a consistent majority (around 58% in recent polls) now agrees a new major party is needed because Republicans and Democrats are seen as doing “such a poor job” representing the people[1]. Partisan polarization has become a “dominant, seemingly unalterable condition” of American politics, with the two parties agreeing on virtually nothing[2]. This paralysis coincides with warning signs of national decline: rising debt levels, economic inequality, and internal social conflicts. As one analysis of historical cycles shows, great powers on the “decline” tend to exhibit high debt burdens, intense internal strife, and eroding competitiveness.

Indeed, many of these indicators are flashing red for the U.S. – from a national debt projected to reach 120% of GDP by 2035 on the current path[3], to surging political polarization and even talk of civil strife. Without systemic changes, America risks continuing down a trajectory of stagnation and discord.

Figure 1: Conceptual rise and decline of national power (adapted from Dalio’s Changing World Order). Early-stage nations enjoy strong leadership, innovation, education, and unity, fueling “The Rise.” At “The Top,” they become overextended with slowing productivity and growing wealth gaps. In “The Decline,” large debts, money printing, internal conflict, and weak leadership take hold[4][5]. Many observers fear the U.S. is entering a late-stage decline phase given its record debts and divisions.

The Case for Political System Reform

The need for reform stems from structural issues in American governance that current partisan dynamics seem unable to fix. The two-party duopoly and winner-take-all elections have led to policy gridlock, short-termism, and inadequate representation of voter preferences. Polarization between Democrats and Republicans has reached historic highs, yielding minimal common ground on major issues[2]. This gridlock prevents effective action on looming challenges like fiscal sustainability, infrastructure, healthcare, and climate change. For example, both parties have presided over rising national debt – approaching post-WWII record levels – without a lasting bipartisan solution. The Congressional Budget Office projects debt will hit ~118% of GDP by the mid-2030s under current policies[3], a burden that risks crowding out investment and slowing growth.

Social outcomes are also faltering. Wealth inequality and “gaps in…opportunity & values” have widened (a hallmark of late-cycle decline[6]), as has public disillusionment with democracy. On issues from gun violence to immigration and housing costs, policy inertia has fed public frustration. Homelessness, for instance, has spiked 12% in a single year, reaching over 650,000 people unhoused in 2023 – the highest number since data collection began in 2007[7]. This tragic milestone underscores how rising housing costs and fraying social safety nets are outpacing the current system’s capacity to respond. Yet there are also examples that positive change is possible with focused effort: targeted federal initiatives reduced veteran homelessness by 55% since 2010[8], demonstrating that coherent, well-funded programs can make a huge impact. The challenge is that the entrenched two-party system has struggled to implement such solutions at scale for the broader population.

In short, America’s governance faces a dual crisis of representation (a public hungry for alternatives beyond the ossified two parties[1]) and performance (inability to address long-term problems). Many experts argue that only structural reforms – such as opening the system to new political movements, implementing electoral changes, or modernizing how policy is made – can break the cycle of dysfunction. To illustrate the stakes and potential benefits of reform, we turn to a simulation of two contrasting political platforms and their projected impacts on key national metrics.

Competing Visions: Liberty & Progress Party vs. Project 2025

To explore how different policy paradigms might alter America’s trajectory, we compare two hypothetical platforms through a 10-year simulation. The first is the Liberty & Progress Party, a reformist third-party platform focused on revitalizing governance through a mix of libertarian and progressive ideas. The second is Project 2025, based on the real-world conservative blueprint spearheaded by former Trump administration officials and the Heritage Foundation as a roadmap for the next Republican presidency[9].

Platform 1 – Liberty & Progress Party (L&P): This new party’s agenda is unconventional, blending individual freedom with ambitious social innovation. On the economic front, L&P proposes replacing the federal income tax system with a national value-added tax (VAT), allowing states some control in implementation. The VAT, set around 20–25%, would broaden the tax base and curtail loopholes, providing a stable revenue stream[10]. Though regressive in isolation, it would be coupled with direct cash transfers or tax credits to low-income households to offset higher consumer prices[11][12]. The party also plans to reallocate federal spending from traditional defense toward domestic priorities: it envisions cutting the Pentagon’s budget by ~50% and channeling those funds into cybersecurity, healthcare, education, and scientific R&D[13][14]. The idea is that investing in human and technological capital will boost productivity and long-run growth (a notion supported by historical evidence that government R&D spending spurs sustained productivity gains)[15][16].

On social policy, the Liberty & Progress platform is boldly experimental. It advocates legalizing and taxing recreational drugs and prostitution, both to expand personal freedom and to generate new tax revenue (an estimated +$50 billion/yr) while reducing incarceration costs[17]. It calls for streamlined but generous welfare support – replacing complex programs with simple universal cash stipends or loans, allocated with the help of data-driven social scores to target need[18][19]. To tackle the housing affordability crisis, L&P even floats a radical idea: ban large-scale residential renting in favor of owner-occupied housing only. The intent is to end speculative landlordism and make housing affordable for families, though this policy would need accompanying measures (like expanded access to mortgages or social housing) to avoid initial supply shocks[20][21]. Recognizing this, the party pairs it with plans to build new affordable housing and offer down-payment assistance to renters transitioning to ownership. Finally, the Liberty & Progress platform seeks to rejuvenate democracy with direct civic engagement: it imagines introducing direct national referenda on key policies (with an educational quiz requirement to ensure informed voting)[22], and even creating a fourth “technocratic” branch of government – a non-partisan expert council to advise on complex long-term issues (while curbing the power of lifetime judicial appointments)[23]. Although unconventional, these ideas reflect the party’s core philosophy: maximize liberty in personal life, embrace progress in social policy, and overhaul outdated institutions that hinder the public interest.

Platform 2 – Project 2025: In contrast, Project 2025 represents a consolidation of traditional conservative and nationalist policies, essentially envisioning a second Trump-term agenda on steroids. Described as a “900-page manual for reorganizing the entire federal government to serve a conservative agenda”[24], Project 2025’s proposals touch every aspect of policy. A central theme is empowering the executive branch to enact sweeping changes quickly. For example, it calls for dismantling or restructuring federal agencies wholesale – rolling back regulations on energy, environment, and labor, and purging bureaucratic leadership deemed ideologically opposed to the conservative program[25][26]. In terms of social policy, Project 2025 is explicitly culture-war oriented. It seeks to “gut” abortion access (using old laws like the Comstock Act to ban abortion medication nationally)[27], to curtail LGBTQ rights and gender education, and to promote religious exemptions in civil rights enforcement[24][28]. On immigration, it advocates mass deportations and an end to birthright citizenship for U.S.-born children of immigrants[29] – effectively aiming to reduce both illegal and legal immigration sharply. As part of this, asylum would be severely restricted and enforcement tightened (e.g. the plan calls for “dismantling the asylum system” and separating families at the border as deterrence)[30].

Economically, Project 2025 emphasizes tax cuts, deregulation, and protectionism. It assumes that extending the 2017 Trump tax cuts (through what was nicknamed the “One Big Beautiful Bill”) will stimulate investment and growth. Indeed, one analysis by a sympathetic think tank projected that making those tax cuts permanent could boost long-run GDP by ~2.5% and add 1.3 million jobs[31]. However, independent budget watchdogs warn that such tax plans would also add trillions to the debt – the CRFB finds that recent Republican tax proposals would make deficits ~$1 trillion higher over the decade, pushing debt to ~120% of GDP[3]. Project 2025 also entails aggressive trade tariffs as an economic strategy. President Trump’s tariff agenda (envisioned as part of this platform) would impose new taxes on imports across the board. The Penn Wharton Budget Model estimates these tariffs would raise ~$5 trillion over 10 years but at a steep cost: U.S. long-run GDP would be ~6% smaller and real wages ~5% lower than otherwise, effectively making all future households poorer[32]. In other words, the tariff-heavy approach functions like a large indirect tax on consumers and businesses – twice as damaging to economic output as an equivalent corporate tax increase, according to the Wharton model[33][34]. Project 2025 enthusiasts argue the revenue from tariffs could offset deficits or fund priorities, but most economists see it as sacrificing U.S. growth for dubious gains.

Energy and climate policy under Project 2025 would reverse recent trends in favor of fossil fuels. The Heritage blueprint praised the Trump administration for actions like withdrawing from the Paris Climate Accord, expanding offshore drilling, and opening federal lands for oil & gas development – all policies expected to continue or intensify[35]. Environmental regulations would be pared back to lower business costs, even if that risks higher emissions and long-term climate damage. Military spending, meanwhile, was increased in the Trump years and Project 2025 would likely maintain high or higher defense budgets[35], prioritizing a more confrontational posture abroad (especially against China) while reducing spending on diplomacy or international aid.

In summary, Project 2025 represents an attempt to sharply turn back the clock on many policies – shrinking the welfare state, fortifying traditional social norms through government action, and adopting an isolationist economic stance (tariffs, immigration crackdowns) to protect American industries and workers. Its proponents claim this will restore American strength, but critics warn it could undermine democratic norms and human rights[36][28] while failing to solve core economic issues (and perhaps worsening them via debt and trade wars).

These two platforms – Liberty & Progress vs. Project 2025 – could not be more different in philosophy. One is trying to transcend the left-right divide with systemic innovations; the other is doubling down on a hard-right vision using the existing system’s powers. To move from rhetoric to reality, we simulate how each agenda might play out over a decade (2025–2035) and measure their impacts on key national metrics. By comparing these scenarios to actual historical trends (using data since 2004 as a baseline), we can glean insights into which reforms might put the U.S. on a better course, and underscore why the choice of political direction is so consequential.

Simulated Outcomes Over a Decade

Using static historical data and reasonable assumptions for policy impacts, we project how the Liberty & Progress platform versus the Project 2025 platform would affect several critical indicators over ten years: GDP growth, job creation, national debt, average income, and homelessness. These projections are, of course, estimates – but they are grounded in known economic relationships and expert analyses (cited above) of the proposed policies. Below we present the simulation results for each metric, with charts comparing the two scenarios. The baseline for comparison is the status quo trend circa 2025 (e.g., recent GDP growth ~2%, ~650k homeless nationwide, etc.), which roughly aligns with starting values in the charts.

Economic Growth and Employment

Economic growth under the two scenarios diverges significantly. The Liberty & Progress Party’s emphasis on R&D investment, education, and moderated taxation leads to steadily accelerating growth after a brief adjustment period. By contrast, Project 2025’s front-loaded tax cuts and later trade restrictions produce a short-lived bump followed by a slowdown. Figure 2 illustrates the projected real GDP growth rates:

Figure 2: Projected annual GDP growth (%). The Liberty & Progress scenario (blue) achieves ~3%+ annual growth by late 2020s, sustained by productivity gains from innovation and a larger workforce (due in part to pro-immigration policies). Project 2025 (red) sees growth fall from ~3% in 2025 to ~1% by 2030, as initial tax-cut stimulus fades and high tariffs plus labor force contraction (from immigration limits) drag down long-run growth. Notably, analysts estimate Trump-style across-the-board tariffs could reduce long-run GDP by about 6%[32], consistent with the red trajectory above.

The Liberty & Progress agenda boosts growth through several channels. First, its investment in research, technology, and health yields higher productivity. Government-funded R&D has been shown to “spur sustained growth in long-term productivity”[15] – for instance, medical and tech breakthroughs raise economic output over time. Second, L&P’s relatively open immigration stance (easier pathways for immigrants, albeit with stricter enforcement of any violations[37]) expands the labor force, supporting roughly 3% annual workforce growth in the model. More workers plus more output per worker equals faster GDP expansion. Additionally, replacing income taxes with a VAT may improve incentives to work and invest (people keep more of their paycheck, paying taxes only when consuming)[10]. While a VAT can dampen consumer spending initially (and was assumed to cause a slight one-year growth dip due to higher prices), the net effect in this simulation is positive growth after year 1 – partly because VAT revenue helps fund productive public investments. By 2030, the L&P scenario reaches a stable ~3.3% annual growth, about a percentage point above recent historical averages. Over the decade, cumulative GDP (inflation-adjusted) ends up roughly 15% larger than it would under the Project 2025 path.

Project 2025’s growth path, on the other hand, front-loads gains and back-loads pain. In 2025 and 2026, the combination of tax cuts and deregulatory optimism might produce a sugar high – indeed, we see ~3% growth in 2025 in the model (red line, Fig.2). However, by 2027, two factors start to weigh down the economy: rising interest rates and debt (as deficits mount from tax cuts and spending is not meaningfully curtailed) and protectionist measures (tariffs and immigration cuts). The tariff shock in 2025 raises federal revenue but acts as a large effective tax on imports, increasing costs for consumers and manufacturers. The result, per economic research, is a significant drag on growth – our simulation aligns with PWBM’s finding that such tariffs are “highly distorting,” causing more economic harm than even a major corporate tax hike[34]. By 2028, GDP growth in the Project 2025 scenario falls below 1.5%, and by 2030 it flatlines around 1.0%. The cumulative difference is stark: while L&P’s economy flourishes through 2034, the Project 2025 economy is almost stagnant in the latter half of the decade, risking recession if any external shock hits.

Job creation follows these growth trends. Figure 3 shows annual net new jobs (in millions) under each scenario:

Figure 3: Projected annual job creation. Under Liberty & Progress (blue), the U.S. adds around 2–2.5 million jobs per year in the late 2020s, reflecting robust economic expansion and a growing labor force (augmented by immigration and work-based education reforms). Under Project 2025 (red), job gains dwindle to near zero by 2030. The initial hiring boom from tax cuts (over 2 million jobs in 2025) is followed by a steady decline as the economy slows and labor supply shrinks (less immigration, possibly more deportations). By the 2030s, the Project 2025 scenario essentially fails to produce job growth, raising the risk of higher unemployment.

The Liberty & Progress Party’s policies are designed to create high-quality, sustainable jobs. The infusion of funds into infrastructure, green energy, and research leads to hiring in those sectors (engineers, scientists, construction workers, healthcare workers, teachers, etc.). The legalization of certain industries (e.g. cannabis cultivation and sales, regulated sex work) also brings parts of the underground economy into the formal job market. Additionally, L&P’s education reforms – such as expanding vocational apprenticeships and year-round schooling[38][39] – begin to yield a more skilled workforce by the late 2020s, which attracts business investment and job growth. In the simulation, job creation peaks around 2.5 million/year and then gradually moderates to ~1.8 million/year by the early 2030s, as the economy approaches full employment. Over 10 years, the L&P scenario creates roughly 18–20 million new jobs (significantly above the ~10–12 million that might be expected in a continuation of current trends).

In the Project 2025 scenario, job growth is front-loaded but not sustained. The model assumes the initial corporate tax relief spurs some hiring and that aggressive deregulation (e.g. in energy extraction) brings back certain jobs in oil, gas, and coal in 2025–26. Thus, the red line starts high in Fig.3. However, by 2027 onwards, several policies dampen job growth. Restrictive immigration policies (like ending birthright citizenship and deporting undocumented workers en masse[29]) reduce the working-age population growth; some industries (agriculture, hospitality, tech) struggle to fill positions, putting upward pressure on wages in those sectors but also constraining output. Meanwhile, trade conflicts and tariffs lead to retaliatory measures abroad and higher costs for U.S. exporters, which can cause layoffs in affected industries (e.g. farmers losing export markets, manufacturers facing higher input costs). By 2030, net job creation in the Project 2025 scenario nearly stops – the economy is essentially at stall speed, with any new jobs offset by losses elsewhere. This stands in sharp contrast to the more dynamic job market under L&P, highlighting how much policy choices around openness vs. protection can influence employment.

Fiscal Health: Debt and Deficits

A key rationale for reform is putting the nation’s finances on a sustainable path. The simulation indicates that the Liberty & Progress platform would dramatically improve the debt trajectory relative to both current policy and Project 2025, mainly through its tax reform and spending rebalancing. Figure 4 compares the federal debt-to-GDP ratio over time:

Figure 4: Projected federal debt as a percentage of GDP. The Liberty & Progress Party’s approach (blue) stabilizes and then reduces the debt ratio, from about 100% of GDP in 2025 down to ~85% by 2034. In contrast, under Project 2025 (red), debt rises to roughly 115% of GDP by 2034 (continuing to climb thereafter). These projections incorporate the cost of policies: L&P’s VAT generates significant new revenue (25%+ boost in year one)[40] and defense cuts free up funds, enabling deficit reduction, whereas Project 2025’s tax cuts and high spending result in large deficits (averaging ~6% of GDP annually)[41].

In the Liberty & Progress scenario, fiscal responsibility is a core feature. By replacing multiple taxes with a broad VAT, the government collects revenue more efficiently. Many economists have noted a VAT can raise substantial income if set at moderate rates across a wide base[42][43]. Our model assumes the VAT and other new taxes (e.g. on legalized products, on formerly untaxed church income) bring in an extra 2–3% of GDP in revenue annually. At the same time, L&P’s spending reforms – notably cutting wasteful defense programs and avoiding endless wars – slow the growth of expenditures. The platform redirects money to domestic investment but those investments (education, healthcare, etc.) are capped to not balloon the budget; any savings from military cuts partly go to deficit reduction. As a result, deficits shrink and debt grows more slowly than GDP in the latter half of the decade. By 2030, the debt-to-GDP ratio is declining year over year. In absolute terms, debt is roughly stable around $30 trillion, while GDP is growing, so the ratio improves. This is a marked change from the status quo projection of ever-increasing debt. By 2034, debt is ~15 percentage points of GDP lower than in 2025 – a healthier position that gives the government more fiscal room to maneuver in future crises. Notably, this outcome aligns with historical instances where a combination of economic growth and disciplined budgets (including higher post-war taxes in the 1950s or the 1990s deficit reduction) brought U.S. debt down relative to GDP.

Project 2025, however, pushes debt in the opposite direction. The initiative’s authors give little priority to deficit reduction – in fact, the One Big Beautiful Bill lauded by its advocates would extend tax cuts and likely add trillions to the debt[44][45]. Our simulation incorporates this by increasing deficits initially (to ~6-7% of GDP annually, in line with CRFB’s analysis of Republican fiscal plans[41]). While Project 2025 does envision some spending cuts (for instance, terminating programs favored by Democrats, cutting regulatory agencies, etc.), these are politically difficult and relatively small compared to the revenue lost from tax cuts and the spending added by initiatives like more border enforcement and military expansion. Even the massive tariffs do not fully offset the lost revenue (and their economic drag makes interest costs higher due to a larger debt and higher interest rates)[46]. Consequently, debt rises from 100% to about 115% of GDP in ten years under Project 2025. This path is actually slightly worse than the CBO’s baseline (which was ~118% by 2035 with current law)[3], largely because Project 2025 extends tax cuts that current law would let expire (increasing debt), and its hoped-for savings from slashing government are not sufficient. By 2034, the U.S. would be in uncharted fiscal territory, spending a huge share of its budget just on interest payments (over $1.5 trillion/year in the 2030s according to CRFB’s projections)[47]. Such debt levels raise the risk of a fiscal crisis or the need for harsh austerity down the road. This underscores a paradox: although conservatives often rhetorically emphasize debt fears, the Project 2025 platform as written would likely exacerbate the debt problem, whereas the new centrist/alternative approach might actually fix it. The simulation makes clear that political reform could be key to fiscal reform – a system that allows new ideas like a VAT or strategic spending reallocation can achieve what decades of two-party brinkmanship have not.

Living Standards: Wages and Homelessness

Finally, we examine how ordinary Americans’ day-to-day well-being might diverge under the two platforms. We use median household income (inflation-adjusted) as a proxy for wages/salaries, and the homeless population as an indicator of extreme hardship and social support effectiveness. The contrast here is especially telling: Liberty & Progress policies lift incomes and reduce homelessness, while Project 2025 yields only modest income gains and a worsening homelessness crisis.

Figure 5 shows the projected trajectory of median household salary (in constant 2025 dollars):

Figure 5: Projected real median household income. The median income (around $70k in 2025) rises to roughly $90k by 2034 under the Liberty & Progress Party (blue), growing ~2.5% annually in real terms. Under Project 2025 (red), median income inches up to only about $80k by 2034 (~1% annual growth). The faster wage growth in the L&P scenario is driven by higher productivity (due to technology and education improvements) and tight labor markets with supportive policies (e.g. minimum wage hikes or bargaining power from a strong economy). In the Project 2025 scenario, wage gains are limited; although reduced immigration can put upward pressure on some low-end wages, the overall slower economic growth and lack of proactive wage policies keep the median only slightly above inflation. Moreover, trade-related job losses and the erosion of labor protections may suppress broad wage growth in that scenario.

In the Liberty & Progress scenario, workers share the benefits of a growing, innovative economy. A few factors contribute to rising median income:

• Productivity growth: As noted, L&P’s investments raise the economy’s output per worker. Historically, when productivity rises, wages tend to eventually follow[48]. By late decade, our simulation assumes productivity growth is robust, allowing employers to pay more without losing competitiveness.
• Education and training: A more skilled workforce (thanks to expanded apprenticeships and practical training programs) means workers can command higher salaries. L&P also supports a moderate increase in minimum wage (pegged to productivity gains) and encourages collective bargaining in a balanced way – policies that have been shown to lift the wage floor.
• Tax policy: The shift to a VAT means households no longer pay federal income tax on wages. While the VAT does raise prices of goods (consuming some of that benefit), the net effect is that take-home pay increases for most workers. For middle-income families, not paying (say) 15-20% income tax, but instead paying perhaps ~10% more in prices from the VAT, can leave them slightly ahead on balance. The incentive to earn more is also stronger when marginal income isn’t directly taxed[10], potentially leading to more labor force participation, overtime work, or entrepreneurship – all of which can increase income.

By 2034, the median household in the L&P scenario is earning about $90,000 in today’s dollars, roughly 28% higher than in 2025. For context, in the past decade (2015–2025) median incomes rose roughly 10% in real terms; so this is a significantly faster improvement in living standards.

In the Project 2025 scenario, wage growth is relatively anemic. Despite the strong headline labor market initially, several policy aspects prevent broad-based income gains:

• Weaker productivity: As discussed, the economy’s innovation engine is weaker under heavy trade restrictions and reduced R&D prioritization. If GDP per worker stagnates, so do wages. Notably, the PWBM analysis found that the tariff strategy would make workers less productive and poorer (with wages ~5% lower than otherwise)[32] – our simulation reflects this drag.
• Labor market dynamics: Project 2025’s crackdown on immigration could tighten labor supply in some low-skill sectors, which can bid up wages for remaining workers (e.g. native-born workers might see slightly higher pay in construction or agriculture). However, this effect is narrow and often offset by higher prices and reduced business growth. Meanwhile, policies like right-to-work laws, repeal of labor regulations, and opposition to minimum wage hikes mean there’s no intentional push to raise worker pay. If anything, the balance of power tilts toward employers, which historically can keep wage growth subdued even in a decent economy.
• Inflation and cost of living: One must consider that if large deficits in Project 2025 eventually spark inflation or higher interest rates, real incomes could be eroded. The simulation kept inflation constant for comparability (assuming the Fed controls it), but the risks are there. Additionally, tariffs act like a consumption tax, raising prices on imported goods – effectively a pay cut for consumers. So even if nominal wages rise a bit, real purchasing power might not.

By 2034, the median income in the Project 2025 path is about $80k, only ~14% higher than 2025. The gap between the scenarios ($90k vs $80k) may not sound huge, but $10k extra per year for the typical family is very meaningful – it could cover college tuition for kids, a down payment on a home, or other opportunities that would otherwise be out of reach. This gap highlights how a high-growth, high-investment strategy (L&P) can directly benefit living standards, whereas a low-growth, status-quo strategy (Project 2025) leaves the middle class treading water. Not to mention, L&P’s approach likely also yields non-monetary quality-of-life improvements (better healthcare access from reallocated spending, less crime due to social investments, etc.), which don’t show up in income figures but matter greatly.

Finally, we turn to homelessness, a stark indicator of social well-being (or lack thereof). Homelessness is influenced by housing costs, economic shocks, mental health and addiction services, and social safety nets. Our simulation treats the Liberty & Progress Party and Project 2025 as polar opposites in addressing this crisis. Figure 6 projects the number of homeless individuals nationally:

Figure 6: Projected homeless population (in thousands of people). Starting from roughly 650,000 homeless in 2025 (point-in-time count)[7], the Liberty & Progress scenario (blue) achieves a steady decline, cutting homelessness by more than half to ~250,000 by 2034. This is driven by aggressive housing-first policies, increased affordable housing supply, and economic support for at-risk groups. The Project 2025 scenario (red) sadly sees homelessness continue to rise, reaching around 850,000 by 2034 – reflecting unaffordability and austerity. In this scenario, reductions in welfare and lack of housing investment allow the affordability crisis to deepen (as evidenced by recent real-world spikes in homelessness tied to housing costs[49]). The contrast suggests that political reform toward evidence-based social policies could dramatically reduce homelessness.

The Liberty & Progress Party treats homelessness as a solvable problem, not an intractable one. Its strategy mirrors what has worked in specific contexts, scaled nationally:

• Housing First approach: L&P explicitly increases funding for housing the homeless, preferring permanent supportive housing solutions over shelters. This includes converting unused federal buildings into apartments, subsidies for rapid rehousing, and expanding Housing Choice Vouchers so every eligible low-income person can get rental assistance (though in the long run, with the push for ownership, vouchers might transition into down-payment grants). Evidence is clear that Housing First programs are more effective at reducing homelessness than conditional approaches[50]. For example, veteran homelessness in the U.S. fell by 55% over a decade when a concerted Housing First initiative was implemented[51]. L&P essentially applies the lessons learned from veterans to the general homeless population.
• Affordability via supply and policy: The platform’s radical stance on housing (banning most renting) is aimed at forcing systemic affordability. While this is drastic and would need careful phasing, the underlying goal is to break the cycle of ever-rising rents. In our simulation, we assumed L&P incentivizes a massive increase in housing supply – perhaps through public-private partnerships to build mixed-income developments, tax breaks for creating accessory dwelling units, and zoning reforms. Coupled with the rental ban (which might, for instance, prohibit corporate ownership of single-family homes), these measures would over a few years drive down home prices and rents. Indeed, initially the simulation showed a potential uptick in homelessness if rental units were taken off the market too fast[52], but the party would likely adjust policy to prevent that (e.g. only ban new purchases by landlords and preserve existing leases until alternative housing is found). By the late 2020s, the increased housing supply and lower prices mean fewer people are pushed into homelessness due to economic reasons.
• Social support and prevention: L&P’s generous welfare approach – direct cash transfers or loans to those in need – provides a safety net to catch people before they fall into homelessness. The party also invests in mental health and addiction treatment (using some of the funds freed from the criminal justice system after drug legalization). With more robust services and income support, many at-risk individuals (e.g. those exiting foster care or prison, or living paycheck-to-paycheck) are prevented from becoming homeless in the first place[53].

As a result, the simulation shows homelessness declining year after year. By 2034, the homeless population is only ~250,000, which would be an unprecedented low. This suggests near-functional zero homelessness could be attainable with intense focus – a claim supported by the fact that some communities in the U.S. have effectively ended veteran homelessness or chronic homelessness through sustained effort. It’s a matter of political will and smart resource allocation.

Conversely, Project 2025 offers little that would improve, and much that would worsen, the homelessness crisis. The platform does not prioritize affordable housing; if anything, its budget cuts might reduce federal housing assistance (for instance, if HUD programs are slashed in an effort to shrink government). There is also an absence of strategies to mitigate rent inflation. During the Trump administration, homelessness actually rose in many big cities despite economic growth, largely due to housing costs outpacing incomes – a trend likely to continue under laissez-faire housing policy. Our model projects homelessness rising ~3% a year under Project 2025, crossing 800,000 by 2032. This is in line with warnings from housing researchers that without major investments, homelessness will keep climbing as housing becomes more unaffordable[54]. Additionally, Project 2025’s stance on social services and “law and order” could be problematic: for example, an emphasis on criminalizing vagrancy or institutionalizing people with addiction (ideas floated by some aligned with Trump’s rhetoric) does nothing to address root causes and often just shifts homeless individuals from streets to jails. Without new housing or income supports, those strategies fail. In short, under Project 2025, the most vulnerable are left to fend for themselves in a harsher environment – leading to the grim outcome in the red line above.

This comparison powerfully underscores the human stakes of political reform. The difference between 250k and 850k homeless is not just a number – it’s hundreds of thousands of lives either restored to stability or left in despair. It shows that with enlightened policies, extreme poverty in America can be tackled (the L&P scenario achieving something close to what many advocates call for), whereas sticking with or intensifying the current partisan status quo could allow social crises to fester.

Sources

• Gallup – Support for a Third Major U.S. Party (2024)[1]
• Pew Research Center – Political Polarization (2021)[2]
• Ray Dalio, Principles for Dealing with the Changing World Order – empirical charts on national rise/decline[4][6]
• Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025 description[35][9]; ACLU overview of Project 2025 policies[28][29]
• CRFB analysis of debt with “One Big Beautiful Bill” (2025)[3]
• Penn Wharton Budget Model – impact of Trump tariffs (2025)[32]
• Dallas Fed – link between R&D and productivity/wages[15]
• Harvard JCHS – Record homelessness in 2023 (affordability crisis)[7]
• NLIHC – Veteran homelessness down 55% with Housing First efforts[8]
• Additional data from FRED, CBO, and OpenBB (historical economic indicators, 2004–2024) [data integrated into simulator]

[1]  Support for a Third Political Party in the U.S. Dips to 58% 

https://news.gallup.com/poll/651278/support-third-political-party-dips.aspx

[2] The Political Typology: In polarized era, deep divisions persist within coalitions of both Democrats and Republicans | Pew Research Center

https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2021/11/09/beyond-red-vs-blue-the-political-typology-2/

[3] [41] [44] [45] [47] National debt to hit 120% of GDP by 2035, new analysis shows | Fox Business

https://www.foxbusiness.com/politics/us-debt-set-surge-120-gdp-federal-deficits-spiral-over-next-decade-under-new-projections

[4] [5] [6] economicprinciples.org

https://www.economicprinciples.org/DalioChangingWorldOrderCharts.pdf

[7] Riordan Frost | Joint Center for Housing Studies

https://www.jchs.harvard.edu/staff/riordan-frost

[8] Veteran Homelessness Drops to Record Low under the Biden-Harris Administration | National Low Income Housing Coalition

https://nlihc.org/resource/veteran-homelessness-drops-record-low-under-biden-harris-administration

[9] [24] [27] [28] [29] [30] [36] Project 2025, Explained | American Civil Liberties Union

https://www.aclu.org/project-2025-explained

[10] [42] [43] Understanding Value-Added Tax (VAT): An Essential Guide

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/v/valueaddedtax.asp

[11] [12] [13] [14] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [37] [38] [39] [40] [52] Poly Sci Sim V1.docx

Poly Sci Sim V1 / Economic Forecast: 10-Year Outlook Under 2006 Policy Overhaul

[15] [16] [48] Government-funded R&D produces long-term productivity gains - Dallasfed.org

https://www.dallasfed.org/research/economics/2024/0213

[25] [26] [35]  What is Project 2025? What to know about the conservative blueprint for a second Trump administration - CBS News

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/what-is-project-2025-trump-conservative-blueprint-heritage-foundation/

[31] Center for Federal Tax Policy - Tax Foundation

https://taxfoundation.org/research/federal-tax/

[32] [33] [34] [46] The Economic Effects of President Trump’s Tariffs — Penn Wharton Budget Model

https://budgetmodel.wharton.upenn.edu/issues/2025/4/10/economic-effects-of-president-trumps-tariffs

[49] Melody Wright on X: "Just discussed this in my Stack (pinned) and ...

https://twitter.com/m3_melody/status/1757085291137945902

[50] [PDF] THE EVIDENCE IS CLEAR: HOUSING FIRST WORKS

https://nlihc.org/sites/default/files/Housing-First-Evidence.pdf

[51] Homelessness among veterans drops to record low levels

https://www.militarytimes.com/veterans/2024/11/11/homelessness-among-veterans-drops-to-record-low-levels/

[53] Homelessness Is Solvable, But Only with Sufficient Investment in ...

https://www.urban.org/urban-wire/homelessness-solvable-only-sufficient-investment-housing

[54] How Housing Costs Drive Levels of Homelessness

https://www.pew.org/en/research-and-analysis/articles/2023/08/22/how-housing-costs-drive-levels-of-homelessness

Roadmap: From Simulation to Reality – Building the Political Reform Simulator 

Analyzing these scenarios makes clear the need for informed, data-driven policymaking. To further this goal and engage the public in envisioning reforms, we propose creating an open-source Political Simulation Platform. This simulator, initially conceived as a lightweight web game, will allow users to role-play different political agendas (like the two above or others) and see projected outcomes. By comparing simulated futures with historical data, it can educate citizens and policymakers on the trade-offs and impacts of various reforms. We outline below a step-by-step SCRUM project roadmap for developing this simulator on GitHub, from MVP to full-featured application:

1. Project Initialization and Backlog Creation – Sprint 0: Set up the GitHub repository and define the core user stories and features. For example: “As a user, I want to select a political party platform and adjust policy sliders (tax rates, spending levels, etc.), so that I can simulate 10-year economic and social outcomes.” Break down the project into a product backlog of epics and user stories. Key initial tasks include choosing a tech stack (e.g. Python/JavaScript for simulation logic, a simple web framework for UI), and compiling the static historical dataset (GDP, jobs, debt, etc. from 2004 onward) to ground the simulation in reality. Define acceptance criteria for basic functionality: the simulator should load historical baseline data, allow selection of two platforms (L&P and Project 2025 to start), and output a set of result graphs as seen above. Hold a sprint planning meeting to prioritize the first sprint’s goals: likely focusing on a minimal web interface and simple calculation engine.
2. Version 1 – Lightweight Web-Based Game (MVP) – Sprint 1-2: Develop a simple web application that users can interact with in a browser. The focus here is on front-end usability and basic simulation mechanics. Tasks in these sprints:
3. UI development: Create a clean interface with input controls for different policy parameters. This could be sliders for tax rates, toggles for policies (e.g. “Implement VAT: Yes/No”), and dropdowns for selecting party platforms or preset scenarios. Ensure the UI is intuitive (perhaps using a “hero” section with a brief intro and then interactive panels).
4. Simulation engine (v1): Implement a lightweight calculation module (likely in JavaScript or as an API in Python) that takes the user inputs and computes outcomes. At this stage, it can be a deterministic model using linear relationships or simple multipliers derived from historical sensitivities (for example, a slider for “military spending reallocation” might adjust GDP growth by a fixed amount). The aim is not hyper-accuracy but to reflect plausible trends (as we did in the whitepaper). Use the static historical data as a baseline – e.g. code in the actual 2004–2024 GDP, jobs, etc., and then when a simulation runs from 2025–2035, it can show how the lines diverge from actual 2004–2024 trends or from a baseline projection.
5. Charts and results display: Integrate a charting library to display outputs like GDP growth, debt, etc. Once the simulation runs (e.g. user clicks “Simulate”), the results should be shown as graphs similar to Figures 2–6. Include comparisons to historical actuals (perhaps a dashed line showing 2004–2024 and then the simulation lines).
6. Testing & feedback: Perform usability testing. For SCRUM, at the end of Sprint 1, demo the basic game to stakeholders (could be colleagues or a pilot user group) to get feedback. Maybe users want more explanation of what each policy does – note these improvements in the backlog.
7. Iteration: Sprint 2 can refine calculations (make them more dynamic or add more metrics) and incorporate feedback (e.g. better tooltips or explanations for non-expert players). By the end of Sprint 2, Version 1 should be deployed (perhaps on GitHub Pages or a simple cloud host) – a playable web game where up to e.g. 5 players could each choose a party and see who achieves better outcomes (introducing a bit of competition).
8. Version 2 – Transition to a CLI-Based Tool (for advanced users) – Sprint 3-4: While a web game engages the general public, a command-line interface (CLI) tool will cater to power users such as researchers, data analysts, or policymakers who might want to run bulk simulations or integrate the model into other analyses. This phase focuses on modularizing the simulation logic and expanding its accuracy:
9. Refactor simulation core: Separate the simulation engine from the web interface code. Perhaps rewrite/structure it as a Python package (polisim for example) that can be installed via pip. This engine can now incorporate more sophisticated modeling – e.g. differential equations for debt dynamics, or conditional logic (like if debt > 110%, interest rate increases). Ensure the module is well-documented and tested.
10. CLI development: Create a CLI wrapper that allows users to input parameters or choose preset scenarios via terminal. For example, a user might run: $ polisim --platform "Liberty & Progress" --years 2025-2035 --output results.csv. The tool would then output the projected metrics (and perhaps also generate charts as image files). Include options for multiple parties/players, e.g. to simulate a scenario with up to 5 parties (this foreshadows multiplayer mode in v3, but in CLI it could just output each party’s results for comparison).
11. Expanded dataset integration: Import more historical data into the engine for validation. For instance, let the user run the simulation on past years (e.g. simulate 2008–2018 with certain policies and compare to actual outcomes). This requires storing actual economic data (OpenBB’s API or FRED could be sources in future, but for now include static CSVs in the repo). Write unit tests comparing simulation output in a known scenario to actual historical stats to calibrate the model.
12. Accuracy improvements: Possibly integrate simplistic behavioral equations. Example: incorporate Okun’s law (linking GDP and unemployment) or Phillips curve elements for inflation if needed. The CLI version can be more complex “under the hood” since it’s aimed at users who appreciate the nuance.
13. Documentation: Develop a README and wiki on GitHub for how to use the CLI, with examples. Also document the underlying model formulas for transparency (important for an academic grounding).
14. Sprint review and user testing: Engage a few domain experts to try the CLI. Maybe an economist runs it with custom inputs. Use their feedback to refine the tool. By the end of Sprint 4, Version 2 (CLI tool) should be released on GitHub (perhaps as a tagged release, with installation instructions).
15. Version 3 – Fully Integrated Odoo Studio App – Sprint 5-7: Odoo is a suite of enterprise apps (ERP/CRM), and Odoo Studio allows custom app creation with minimal coding. Deploying the simulator as an Odoo app would enable integration with a broader system (for instance, a civic organization could incorporate it into their Odoo-based portal for community engagement or an education platform could include it as a module). Steps in these sprints:
16. Odoo module design: Use Odoo Studio to create a new app “PoliSim” (placeholder name). Design the data models – for example, a model for a Simulation Game Session, with fields for each party/player (up to 5) and their policy settings, and fields to store results (or references to result records). Another model could be PolicySet or Platform, pre-defining Liberty & Progress and Project 2025 as records (so that new platforms can be added through the UI without code).
17. User interface in Odoo: Build forms and views for inputting simulation parameters. Leverage Odoo’s web interface: perhaps each player in a session can be one Odoo user, and they fill in their party’s decisions in a form view. You can utilize Odoo’s model logic to call the simulation engine (which might be integrated as a Python library in the Odoo deployment).
18. Integration of live data (planned): Set up the architecture to allow pulling live data feeds in future updates. For now, maybe create a placeholder scheduler job in Odoo that could fetch data from an API (OpenBB or FRED) to update the baseline annually. Document how live data could flow (e.g. via OpenBB’s Python integration to get the latest economic indicators) so that Version 3 is ready for that expansion.
19. Multi-user gameplay: Ensure the app supports 4–5 players per party and up to 5 parties. In practice, this could mean the app allows creating a game with up to e.g. 25 users, divided into teams. Odoo has a robust user/permissions system, so utilize that: each simulation session record can have associated followers or user roles for each party. Real-time collaboration might be achieved using Odoo’s live chat or by having a “run simulation” button that once all players have input their policies, an admin (game master) triggers the simulation and everyone sees the results.
20. Testing in Odoo environment: Since Odoo Studio is low-code, do thorough testing to avoid performance issues. The simulation engine must run efficiently within Odoo’s framework (which might mean optimizing the Python code or leveraging Odoo’s computation capabilities). Run sample sessions with dummy users.
21. Deployment: Decide whether this app will be part of an Odoo Online instance or on-premise. If on the Odoo App Store or similar, prepare packaging. By end of Sprint 7, Version 3 is deployed in an Odoo instance and possibly demonstrated to stakeholders (e.g. a civic tech meetup or an academic conference on political science simulations).
22. Future Enhancements (Post-version 3 backlog): Even after the above, the project can continue in true agile fashion. Some backlog ideas for future sprints:
23. Live Data Integration: Activate the pipelines to fetch live data from OpenBB (which can aggregate financial/economic data) and FRED (for macro data) on an ongoing basis. This would allow the simulator to automatically update its baseline and even run real-time simulations (e.g. “if Platform X were in effect over the last 6 months, what would GDP be?” using actual recent data).
24. AI-driven scenarios: Incorporate machine learning to improve simulation accuracy or to emulate behavior of political actors. For example, an ML model could predict how public opinion might shift under each scenario, adding another output metric.
25. Expanded policy library: Add more granularity – e.g. specific policies like “Raise minimum wage to $15” or “Implement universal basic income” that users can toggle. This would deepen the educational value.
26. Enhanced multiplayer: Develop a competitive mode where multiple parties (players) can enact policies over iterative turns (like a game) and the simulator recalculates after each turn, introducing dynamics (akin to a turn-based strategy game for policymaking). Scoring systems could be added (e.g. points for achieving high GDP with low inequality, etc.).
27. Community contributions: Encourage other developers and researchers to contribute via GitHub. Host workshops or hackathons to extend the simulator (maybe adding more country data to simulate other nations, or testing different electoral systems).

Throughout development, SCRUM principles guide us: iterative development, regular stakeholder feedback, and flexibility to adapt the roadmap as we learn what works best. By Version 3, we would have a robust tool that not only highlights the need for political reform but actively engages people in experimenting with reforms. The very act of playing with the simulator could build public awareness and demand for change, turning abstract policy debates into tangible outcomes. In essence, this project turns the academic analysis into an interactive educational experience – empowering Americans (and others) to explore how different choices shape our shared future, and underscoring that better outcomes are possible with the right systemic changes.

Simulation Mechanics (Odoo Implementation)

Models

• Politicians: Name, Approval Rating, Public Sentiment, Campaign Funds, Popularity Score.
• Policies: Type, Status (Proposed/Active/Rejected), Impacts on GDP, Budget, Sentiment.
• Metrics: GDP, Budget, Public Sentiment, Homelessness, tracked over time.

Dashboards

• Politicians ranked by Popularity Score.
• Metrics in charts: GDP (line), Sentiment (bars), Budget (gauge).
• Decision board with buttons: Propose/Activate Policy.

Automation

• Weekly updates:
  • GDP: +0.2% growth.
  • Sentiment: random ±2.
  • Homelessness drops with UBI/housing policy active.
  • Tax revenue adjusts to policies.
• Conditional boosts:
  • UBI increases sentiment +3.
  • Housing “Ownership Only” reduces homelessness -10%.

Gamification

• • Leaderboards, badges (“Balanced Budget Award,” “Voter Favorite”).
  • Events: “Presidential Cage Match” debates every 4 years.
  • Voter/election events simulated through Odoo workflows.

Web App (Preview)

Previous

Next

Economic Forecast: 10-Year Outlook Under 2006 Policy Overhaul

Introduction: In this scenario, the United States implements sweeping economic and social reforms starting in 2006 (with groundwork in 2004–2005). Key policy changes include abolishing income, sales, and property taxes in favor of a national value-added tax (VAT) and land value tax on undeveloped land; taxing religious organizations; replacing welfare with a universal basic income (UBI) or conditional social loans; legalizing and taxing drugs, prostitution, and gambling; reallocating military spending to technology and science; mandating a homeownership-only housing model (no rentals, co-living allowed); eliminating foreign aid; empowering technocratic governance to override failed policies; reforming education toward year-round schooling and vocational training; fast-tracking violent crime sentencing; and comprehensive immigration reform (easier legal paths paired with strict enforcement). This forecast simulates outcomes from 2006 through 2016, assuming full policy implementation by 2006 (with transitional measures in 2004–2005). It incorporates actual historical shocks like the 2008 financial crisis (marked in charts) to highlight differences between the scenario and the baseline (actual historical trends). We track metrics including GDP, employment, incomes, public sentiment, social stability, homelessness, overdoses, STDs, incarceration, voter turnout, UBI distribution, tax revenue, and national debt.

Overall, the simulation suggests substantially improved economic performance and social outcomes by 2016 under this policy regime, albeit with significant transitional disruptions. Public sentiment initially divides over radical changes, but technocratic management and tangible benefits lead to growing approval by the mid-2010s. The global financial crisis of 2008 still causes a recession, but the scenario’s policies mitigate its severity and speed up recovery. Below, we provide detailed forecasts and analysis for major metrics, supported by charts and relevant evidence.

Taxation and Economic Growth

Tax Overhaul & Growth: The elimination of income, sales, and traditional property taxes in favor of a national VAT and land value tax fundamentally shifts incentives in the economy. Consumption is taxed, but income and investment are not – which encourages saving and productive investment[1]. Economic theory and empirical research suggest that consumption taxes (like a VAT) are more growth-friendly than income taxes[1]. The Tax Foundation notes that income taxes impose higher economic costs and compliance burdens than consumption taxes, and that moving to a VAT “would end the tax bias against saving and investment”[1]. Likewise, a land value tax is highly efficient and spurs development: areas that tax land more (relative to structures) see higher economic growth and more construction, as underused land is put to work[2][3]. By 2016, the combination of VAT and land tax has broadened the tax base, capturing formerly untaxed activities (e.g. the underground drug trade now legalized) and discouraging land speculation. Economists have long held that a land tax does “not distort” economic decisions[4] and indeed real-world data show heavier land taxation correlates with greater development, density, and even lower cost of living[2][3].

Tax Revenue: Despite lower rates on productive activity, tax revenues remain robust. The VAT (implemented, say, at a high rate around 20–25%) generates substantial revenue from broad consumption, including newly legalized markets. The land value tax on undeveloped land pushes landowners to either develop or sell unused land, leading to a construction boom (more on housing below) and providing revenue while bringing down land prices. Ending tax exemptions for religious institutions adds an estimated $70+ billion in annual tax base[5][6] (though some analysts caution actual collections could be lower if nonprofits adjust behavior[7]). Still, by treating churches like businesses (paying VAT on purchases and land taxes on property), the government recoups tens of billions that were previously untaxed[5]. Overall, by 2016, tax revenue as a share of GDP is stable or higher than baseline, helping fund the UBI and other programs while reducing deficits.

GDP Growth: The result is higher GDP growth throughout 2006–2016 (see Figure 1). With no income or corporate tax, businesses and individuals have strong incentives to work and invest. The U.S. effectively becomes a tax haven for productive enterprise – attracting capital and talent. The UBI (discussed later) ensures consumers have spending power to keep demand high, offsetting the regressive aspects of the VAT. Legalization of formerly illicit sectors adds their output to official GDP. Moreover, the shift of military spending to R&D and infrastructure boosts long-run productivity (as detailed below in Technology & Military Reinvestment).

Figure 1: Real GDP Trajectory: As shown in

Figure 1, real GDP in the scenario grows faster than the baseline. By 2016, GDP is about 10–12% higher than it would have been without these reforms. Even during the 2008 crisis, the scenario’s GDP dip is milder and shorter. The housing crash is tempered (because speculative excess was curbed by the new land/housing policies), and the economy quickly rebounds thanks to robust fundamentals. Citing CBO projections for comprehensive reform, higher immigration alone contributes significantly to growth – CBO estimated the 2013 reform bill would raise U.S. GDP by 3.3% by 2023 and 5.4% by 2033[8]. Our scenario enacts such immigration reform in 2006, adding young workers and entrepreneurs much earlier. Similarly, academic modeling of a national UBI funded by taxes shows substantial stimulus to GDP (e.g. a full UBI could boost GDP ~12% after 8 years under certain financing)[9]. Thus, by the mid-2010s, the U.S. economy is not only larger but growing on a higher trajectory than actual, with fewer boom-bust cycles.

Public Debt: Faster growth and solid tax revenues mean the national debt in this scenario grows more slowly than baseline – potentially even stabilizing as a share of GDP by 2016. The elimination of foreign aid (about 1% of the federal budget[10]) and the drawdown in military expenditures free up hundreds of billions. While new expenditures like UBI are large, many are offset by ending legacy programs (e.g. welfare administration costs, some agricultural subsidies due to no corporate land ownership, etc.) and by new tax streams (VAT, vice taxes). The CBO found that immigration reform alone would reduce deficits by $200 billion in the first decade[11][8] – our scenario captures those savings as well. By 2016, the debt-to-GDP ratio is on a healthier path than baseline, aided by GDP growth and restrained spending on prisons and welfare.

Employment and Income

Jobs and Unemployment: The policy mix is highly pro-employment. Removing income and payroll taxes makes hiring less costly and take-home pay higher, encouraging labor supply. Legalizing banned industries formally adds hundreds of thousands of new legitimate jobs (in cannabis, licensed drug clinics, casinos and sportsbooks, regulated brothels, etc.). Military-to-civilian R&D conversion also creates high-tech jobs in AI, cybersecurity, clean energy, and science. While defense contractor jobs declined, most workers smoothly transition to burgeoning tech industries with government support (the technocracy anticipated retraining needs). Figure 2 shows the unemployment rate peaking lower in 2009 and then falling faster than in reality, dropping under 5% by 2012 and to ~3.5% by 2016 (versus 4.7% actual in 2016).

Figure 2: Unemployment Rate Comparison: In

Figure 2, the orange line (scenario) versus gold line (actual baseline) highlights higher joblessness in the actual 2008–2009 recession. In the scenario, although the global crisis still hits (marked by the shaded bar), the housing reform prevented a huge mortgage meltdown and UBI buffered consumer demand. The employment impact of UBI is ambiguous in theory – some people may work less with a basic income, but others may use it to get education or start businesses. Our forecast assumes UBI replaces only the disincentives of welfare (which often phase out with income). Since everyone receives UBI, working more no longer means losing benefits, likely increasing labor force participation among lower-income groups. Empirical evidence from pilot programs and Alaska’s dividend suggests no large drop in work effort[12]. Meanwhile, the focus on vocational training (discussed below) yields a workforce with skills better aligned to jobs, reducing structural unemployment.

Wages and Take-Home Pay: With no income tax, workers keep 100% of their paycheck (federal tax-wise), significantly boosting take-home pay from 2006 onward. For example, a $50,000 salary that used to net ~$40k after taxes now nets the full $50k. Part of this gain is spent on VAT for consumption, but those who save or invest benefit greatly (aligning with the policy’s intent to spur investment[1]). The VAT’s consumption tax burden is partly offset by UBI stipends, ensuring even low-income families can cover the higher prices on essentials. Additionally, without corporate income tax, some of that windfall likely flows to workers in the form of higher wages over time (firms compete for labor, and with UBI in place, workers have more bargaining power to demand good pay and conditions). By 2016, inflation remains moderate – the initial one-time price level increase from VAT is managed by the technocrats (e.g. monetary policy adjusts to keep core inflation stable). Notably, the independent Fed remains intact; in our scenario the Fed works closely with the technocratic council to coordinate policy. The Fed’s focus on low inflation is aided by the fact that political pressure to overstimulate is reduced (the government can rely on technocratic fiscal policy and simulation-tested interventions). This is akin to how independent central banks historically achieved lower inflation outcomes[13] – indeed, central bank independence is a technocratic element that in reality helped advanced countries reduce inflation since the 1980s[13][14]. In our scenario, evidence-based governance extends that principle across other policy domains.

Income Equality: The VAT+UBI system makes the tax/transfer system somewhat less progressive on the surface (flat consumption tax), but UBI provides an effective progressive benefit. Every citizen gets, say, \$10,000/year UBI, which is far larger as a fraction of income for a poor person than for a rich person. The land value tax largely hits wealthy landowners and discourages land hoarding. Additionally, “loans tied to social/criminal score” mean those engaged in destructive behavior might not get free money, but only loans – this targets negative incentives without cutting off support entirely. Overall inequality likely decreases: UBI lifts the bottom, and taxing previously exempt wealth (land, church assets) touches some upper holdings. Many middle-class households benefit from higher net pay and new asset ownership (housing). By 2016, the Gini coefficient is trending down for the first time in decades, and poverty rates fall substantially (the poverty line is effectively covered by UBI, eliminating extreme poverty).

Technological Investment and Military Reallocation

Military to R&D: In 2006, the U.S. redirected a large portion of its \$500+ billion defense budget into AI research, cyber security, clean energy projects, infrastructure, and scientific research. Defense spending was trimmed to a leaner force, focused on essential security, while massive funds were freed for innovation. Historically, military R&D has driven some technology (e.g. the Internet via DARPA), but economists find domestic spending on infrastructure, education, and renewable energy creates far more jobs per dollar than military spending[15][16]. For instance, \$1 million spent on defense creates ~6.9 jobs, whereas the same in education creates ~19 jobs and in healthcare ~14 jobs[15]. Our scenario’s shift thus yields a short-term jobs boost in construction and tech, cushioning any layoffs from arms manufacturing. By 2016, we see tangible dividends: AI breakthroughs (the U.S. leads in AI deployments, perhaps reaching autonomous vehicle prototypes and advanced robotics years earlier than baseline), clean energy advancements (the U.S. meets and exceeds 2015 Paris Agreement goals wef 10 years early, with solar/wind comprising a much larger share of the grid, supported by heavy R&D and subsidies from ex-military funds). Cybersecurity investments also pay off: major cyber attacks that occurred in our real timeline (like large data breaches) are largely thwarted in this scenario, and the U.S. is better insulated from foreign cyber threats.

Productivity and Growth: Economists have long argued that public R&D has very high social returns, often higher than typical infrastructure investments[17]. The NBER finds that federal R&D yields “substantially higher” returns than other federal investments[17], especially because basic research often leads to huge productivity gains down the line (e.g. early physics research led to MRI machines decades later[18]). Our scenario’s big bet on science likely accelerates the technology frontier. By 2016, productivity growth (which had been sluggish in the early 2000s) picks up. The nation is on the cusp of new industries (perhaps biotech or fusion energy) thanks to this sustained R&D push.

National Security & Efficiency: Although the military budget is smaller, the technocratic government ensures core defense needs are met through efficiency. Wasteful big-ticket programs (with limited utility) are axed, and resources focus on intelligence, cyber defense, special forces, and force multipliers (like drones and robotics developed via AI research). The U.S. still deters global threats but spends far less – freeing ~2–3% of GDP for domestic use. This contributes to both the GDP growth and deficit reduction noted above. Importantly, by improving education and economic opportunity at home, crime and instability decrease (as we’ll cover), arguably improving national security from within – a point the technocrats frequently make.

Social Policy Outcomes

Crime and Justice

Legalization of Vice & Public Health: One of the boldest sets of reforms was legalizing all drugs, prostitution, and gambling, coupled with regulation and taxation. These changes had profound social effects:

·         Drug Legalization: Starting 2006, cannabis was regulated like alcohol, and harder drugs were made available via licensed clinics or pharmacies with prescriptions, along with a robust expansion of treatment programs. The violent black market for drugs rapidly shrank – cartels and street gangs lost revenue as consumers shifted to legal channels. The incarceration of nonviolent drug offenders plummeted (details below). Importantly, treating addiction as a health issue, not a crime, led to improved health outcomes. We forecast an initial surge in treatment seeking and a decline in overdose deaths. In fact, the U.S. takes inspiration from Portugal’s 2001 decriminalization: Portugal saw overdose deaths drop 80% and HIV infections among drug users fall by 90+% after decriminalizing and investing in treatment[19][20]. Our scenario sees similar or greater benefits because we went further to full legalization with quality control: by 2016, overdose deaths in the U.S. are down dramatically instead of skyrocketing as they did under the opioid epidemic in reality. Figure 3 starkly illustrates this:

Figure 3: Annual Drug Overdose Deaths:

Figure 3 compares overdose deaths. The baseline (gold line) shows the tragic opioid crisis climbing from ~20,000 deaths in 2006 to over 60,000 by 2016. In the scenario (orange line), deaths drop steadily each year, falling below 10,000 by 2016. This improvement is thanks to safe supply (no fentanyl-laced illicit pills in legal pharmacies), widespread availability of naloxone and supervised injection sites, and the social credit incentives (those who seek treatment and maintain sobriety improve their citizen scores). By 2016, overdose mortality is reduced by ~80%, echoing Portugal’s success[21][22]. The social savings are immense: thousands of lives saved, and billions in healthcare and criminal justice costs averted.

• Prostitution Legalization: The scenario decriminalized sex work and put health and safety regulations in place (e.g. licensing, mandatory STI testing, security measures in brothels). As expected, this led to lower sexual violence and disease rates. Empirical evidence from Rhode Island’s inadvertent 2003–2009 legalization of indoor prostitution found rape offenses fell ~31% and female gonorrhea cases dropped ~39%[23][24]. Our forecast mirrors this: sexual assaults, especially against sex workers, decline sharply as the industry moves out of the shadows. Sex workers can seek police help and work in safer conditions. STDs among supervised sex workers are routinely treated, reducing community spread. By 2016, overall STD prevalence (like gonorrhea, syphilis) is modestly down despite more testing – a public health win. Notably, HIV transmission via drug use and sex also declines due to needle exchanges, treatment, and destigmatized healthcare (Portugal saw new HIV cases among drug users plummet from 1,430 in 2000 to 77 by 2015[25][20]; the U.S. could see a similar trend with these combined policies).
• Gambling Legalization: Sports betting and online casinos went live nationwide by 2006. This brought a substantial black market into the taxable economy. By 2016, states and federal government collectively collect several billion dollars annually in gambling taxes (for context, U.S. states collected ~$1.5B from sports betting in 2022 once legalized[26]). Problem gambling is addressed through earmarked funds for addiction programs (the technocrats anticipated social downsides and built in countermeasures). The convenience of legal betting does increase participation somewhat, but studies indicated that irresponsible gambling rose mostly among lower-income groups when online gambling was legalized[27], so the social credit system was leveraged here too – citizens who self-exclude or pass financial literacy courses earn score boosts, encouraging responsible play. On balance, the economic activity and tax revenue from gambling help fund UBI and public programs, with manageable social costs.

Policing and Sentencing: Violent and serious crimes are still firmly punished, but the criminal justice system is overhauled for efficiency and fairness. The “fast-track sentencing” for violent offenses meant that by 2006, dedicated courts and streamlined procedures handled clear-cut violent cases (while preserving due process). Justice is swifter and more certain, which theory suggests has a stronger deterrent effect than severity of punishment[28]. Criminological research underscores that the certainty and swiftness of punishment deter crime far more than long sentences[28][29]. Our scenario’s focus on quick and certain justice (e.g. reducing trial backlog, prompt plea deals for the guilty) embodies that principle. A murderer in 2008 might expect to be tried, convicted, and begin serving time within months of the crime, rather than years. This not only deters some would-be offenders but also prevents many defendants from committing further crimes while out on extended pre-trial release. Importantly, this reform was paired with rigorous efforts to avoid wrongful convictions (use of improved forensic tech, and the technocrats closely monitoring error rates).

Incarceration and Rehabilitation: With drug possession no longer a crime and many vice-related offenders diverted to treatment, the prison population plunges. Figure 4 shows the U.S. incarcerated population (state + federal inmates) dropping steeply in the scenario.

Figure 4: Incarcerated Population (State+Federal):

Figure 4 compares incarceration. In 2006, roughly 2.2 million Americans were behind bars. In reality (gold line), that number stayed around 2.3 million through 2008 and only slowly declined to ~2.17 million by 2015. In the scenario (orange line), prison population free-falls to about 1.6 million by 2010 and ~1.2 million by 2016 – nearly a 50% reduction. This is due to mass commutations of nonviolent drug sentences, far fewer new drug arrests, and the absence of low-level gambling or prostitution arrests (police resources are refocused on serious crime). Tens of thousands of lives are positively affected by this decarceration: families stay together, and billions in corrections spending are saved. Rather than squander this opportunity, the technocratic government reinvests a chunk of the savings into rehabilitation and re-entry programs. Prisons that remain are geared more toward violent offenders and truly dangerous individuals, with expanded education and mental health services inside. Recidivism rates improve as well, since many former inmates now have UBI (reducing the economic desperation that leads back to crime) and can find employment in a growing economy without the stigma of felony drug convictions.

By 2016, America’s incarceration rate, once the highest in the world, is moving closer to international norms. This profoundly boosts social stability in communities of color that were disproportionately harmed by mass incarceration. The trust between police and communities also improves (a focus on community policing emerged after ending the drug war). The Ferguson-like unrest seen in our timeline mid-2010s is largely absent or defused in this scenario, because criminal justice reform addressed a core grievance and technocrats respond swiftly to any incidents with policy fixes (e.g. mandating body cams early on, etc.).

Certainty vs. Severity: It’s worth noting that while punishments for violent crime remain severe (life sentences, etc., are still used), the emphasis shifts to certainty of catching offenders. The scenario invests in investigative training, forensic technology, and smart policing (using data to allocate officers to high-risk areas, but without the bias of pretextual drug stops since drugs are legal). This yields higher clearance rates for violent crimes. Criminals perceive a much greater chance of being caught and convicted, which deters some crimes altogether[28]. Meanwhile, evidence shows that simply increasing sentence lengths does little to deter crime[30] – our scenario heeds that evidence and instead focuses on swift and sure justice, aligning with the NIJ’s findings that “the chance of being caught is a vastly more effective deterrent than even draconian punishment”[28]. Thus, by 2016, violent crime rates are modestly lower than baseline – a continuation of the ’90s decline with an extra push from our policies. Murder and robbery rates in major cities likely 10–20% below their no-reform alternate reality values, with some cities achieving unprecedented low crime levels.

Housing and Homelessness

Homeownership-Only Model: Perhaps the most radical experiment is banning residential landlords and turning the U.S. into a “nation of homeowners.” Starting 2006, individuals and co-ops (but not corporations) are the only entities allowed to own housing. Rental housing is phased out: landlords are required or incentivized to sell units to occupants or convert to resident-owned co-ops. New housing supply is boosted to make ownership broadly affordable (using the land tax to prod development and government subsidies for first-time buyers drawn from repurposed housing vouchers). This policy is aimed at broadly distributing real estate wealth and stabilizing communities. Singapore provided inspiration: through aggressive public housing sales, Singapore achieved ~90% homeownership, which founding PM Lee Kuan Yew deemed “essential for social and political stability”[31]. Indeed, Singapore’s homeownership society has been credited with social cohesion and generational wealth building[32][31]. Our scenario sees similar outcomes: - Ownership Surge: Homeownership rates shoot up from ~69% in 2005 to about 90%+ by 2010 (as virtually all former renters become owners of their units). The government provides low-interest financing (backed by the new social scoring: citizens with good behavior scores get more favorable loan terms). No corporate ownership of land means entities like investment firms or foreign buyers can’t snap up houses – ordinary families face less competition, keeping prices in check. This policy initially caused a massive market churn in 2006–2007 as millions of properties changed hands. The technocracy smoothed this by mediating sales (including “right-to-buy” programs for tenants). While some feared chaos, within a year or two the dust settled, ushering in a new era of widespread property ownership. By 2016, American households have accumulated substantial home equity, vastly increasing middle-class wealth. - Affordability: After a brief correction, housing prices grow sustainably. The land value tax on undeveloped land pushes cities to release vacant lots for building, increasing supply. Zoning is relaxed by technocratic override if it blocks needed housing (ending exclusionary zoning practices). The result is that by 2016, the median house price-to-income ratio is healthier than it was in 2006. (For context, Singapore’s median house price-to-income is ~4.6, far better than many Western cities[32] – our scenario nudges U.S. metrics in that direction through supply and policy). Ordinary Americans spend a smaller share of income on housing than before, and rents are virtually gone (except some permitted exceptions like short-term rentals or dorm-style co-living, which are tightly regulated). - Social Stability: Homeownership has myriad positive side effects. Owners tend to take care of their neighborhoods and feel invested in local governance. The scenario likely sees lower crime in once-rental-heavy areas as ownership stabilizes them (some studies have linked higher homeownership to lower crime, though high ownership can reduce mobility – our UBI and strong job market mitigate the unemployment risk of reduced mobility). Lee Kuan Yew’s intuition that a home-owning society fosters stability seems borne out: by the mid-2010s, U.S. surveys show increased community satisfaction and civic engagement (homeowners voting in local elections, participating in upkeep). Also, racial wealth gaps start to narrow as minority households gain home equity (instead of being stuck renting). - Homelessness: A combination of factors – UBI (so everyone has some income), abundant housing programs, and mental health/drug treatment – leads to a dramatic drop in homelessness. No rent and UBI means very few people are purely priced out of shelter. Those who face personal challenges (mental illness, etc.) are reached by proactive social programs. Technocrats treat chronic homelessness as an solvable problem: they expand “Housing First” initiatives nationwide by 2006, providing stable homes for the homeless and then addressing underlying issues. By 2016, street homelessness is rare; the homeless population is down by an order of magnitude from 2006. Visible tent cities that were emerging in the 2010s timeline do not materialize here.

Challenges: This housing model was not without challenges. Critics warned that banning renting could reduce labor mobility (people might feel “locked in” to their homes). The government responded by facilitating an easy resale market and portable mortgages (and since job openings were plentiful across regions, fewer had to move for work). There was also an initial credit crunch risk in 2006 as landlords sold en masse – but the technocracy had anticipated it, creating a public buyout fund to temporarily hold some properties or underwrite loans, preventing a market crash. Some suburban landlords protested as this policy basically upended their business model; however, given the broad popularity of turning renters into owners, political resistance was subdued (and indeed many mom-and-pop landlords took the generous buyouts and perhaps started new businesses with their capital – small business formation actually ticked up). By 2016, the U.S. housing sector is far more equitable: almost everyone lives in a place they have an ownership stake in, and housing costs (after UBI and lack of rent) are a much smaller burden on the young and poor.

Education and Workforce Development

Year-Round Schooling: In 2006, K-12 schools nationwide shifted to either year-round calendars or work-study arrangements for students. The long summer break was largely eliminated, with shorter breaks distributed through the year. This was intended to curb “summer learning loss,” especially harmful to low-income students[33]. Research supports this move: continuous learning prevents the ~2 months of grade-level loss many students experience each summer[34][35]. By 2016, standardized test scores show narrowing achievement gaps between low-income (who benefited most from year-round schedules) and high-income students. Low-income students in year-round schools maintain more of their progress each year[33]. While initial evidence on year-round schooling’s overall effect is mixed (some studies find minimal difference in average scores)[36], the targeted benefit to struggling students is clear – and our scenario’s early data confirm it. Educators also utilize the periodic intersession breaks for remediation or enrichment: e.g. a two-week break might host optional camps for extra help, which many students attend (helped by UBI allowing parents to afford transport or take time). Importantly, the culture around schooling shifts: with pop-culture figures in politics championing education reform, there’s a drive to value continuous learning or productive work.

College Reimagined: Traditional 4-year college enrollment starts to decline after 2006, by design. In its place, the government and industry establish a robust apprenticeship and paid job-training system. By 2010, millions of young adults who might have pursued generic degrees are instead earning while learning in trades, technology, healthcare, and other fields. This is inspired by Germany’s dual-apprenticeship model, which is known for giving Germany one of the world’s lowest youth unemployment rates (only ~6–7% in 2017, vs ~12% in the U.S.)[37]. The scenario’s adoption of this model yields excellent results by 2016: - Youth Unemployment Plummets: Employers now have pipelines of trained young workers; meanwhile, youths gain real work experience by age 20. Germany’s example showed that countries with strong apprenticeship systems have far lower youth joblessness[38]. In 2006, U.S. youth unemployment (ages 18–24) was around 10%; by 2016 in the scenario, it’s likely halved to ~5% or less. Many high school students transition directly into apprenticeships or “technical college” programs tied to employment. Figure 2 (unemployment) already reflects robust overall employment; for the youth subset the improvement is even more striking. This means less idle time for young adults and fewer entering crime; it also addresses skills mismatches that plagued the real 2010s labor market (where many grads had debt and no job-relevant skills). - Skilled Workforce & Productivity: By emphasizing vocational training, the U.S. alleviates critical skills shortages. For instance, by 2016 there are ample electricians, plumbers, welders, as well as software coders and nurse practitioners coming out of these apprenticeship tracks. Employers no longer complain of “can’t find workers” as loudly, and vacancies are filled faster. This contributes to higher productivity and competitiveness. (The Atlantic noted that youth apprenticeships in Germany are 12 times more popular per capita than in the U.S., and that’s a key reason Germany’s youth unemployment was ~6.5% vs 11.5% in the U.S. in 2017[37][39]. Our scenario flipped this statistic around by 2016.) - Reduced Student Debt: With fewer people going to traditional college, student loan debt stops ballooning. Many apprenticeships and training programs are free or employer-sponsored (and students earn wages). So, by 2016, the total student debt is far lower than baseline – averting a brewing student debt crisis. Those who do pursue academic degrees often do so in fields that truly require it (like advanced sciences or medicine), and the government expands scholarships for those, funded by the reallocated education budgets (since fewer subsidies are needed for undergrad enrollment). The cultural stigma of not having a college degree fades; by 2016 it’s normal and respected for an 18-year-old to say “I’m in a software engineering apprenticeship at Google” or “I’m training as an electrician,” rather than everyone feeling pressured to attend college.

Public Sentiment on Education: Initially, some parents and universities resisted these changes. But the technocrats, armed with pilot program data, demonstrated success (e.g. cities where year-round school started in 2004 saw test scores rise by 5% for the bottom quartile of students by 2007, convincing other districts to follow). By 2016, polls show a majority of Americans believe the education system is better preparing students for careers and life than it did a decade prior – a stark contrast to the discontent in our baseline world about student debt and unemployable grads. This contributes to overall public satisfaction with the technocratic government’s performance in social policy.

Immigration and Demographics

Immigration Reform: The reforms in 2006 made legal immigration to the U.S. more accessible and attractive while strictly enforcing the new rules. A points-based and needs-based system was introduced for work visas, caps were raised, and a path to legal status was given to undocumented immigrants who passed background checks (essentially an accelerated version of the bipartisan proposals that came later in reality). At the same time, border security technology was upgraded and E-Verify (employment verification) was mandated for all employers, greatly reducing illegal hiring. The combination of “easy legal, hard illegal” yields a win-win: - Economic Gains: As noted earlier, an influx of young workers and entrepreneurs raises growth. CBO projected the 2013 Senate reform would add 3.3% to GDP by 2023[8]; our scenario captures those gains a decade sooner. Industries like agriculture, construction, and STEM flourish with a steadier supply of legal labor. New immigrants pay taxes openly (contributing to the VAT and land taxes, and many start businesses which create jobs). The fears that immigrants would strain welfare are less salient since UBI is universal (immigrants begin receiving UBI only after a certain period or status, presumably, which was part of the compromise to make it politically palatable). - Population Balance: Immigration helps counter the aging of the native population, supporting programs like Social Security. In fact, the Social Security Administration’s Chief Actuary had noted that increased immigration significantly improves the system’s solvency[40][41]. By 2016, the U.S. workforce is larger and younger than it would have been, easing fiscal pressures. - Strict Enforcement: Illegal border crossings drop dramatically after 2006. With more work visas available, fewer attempt unauthorized entry, and those who do face higher chance of interception (thanks to more drones, sensors, and patrols funded by targeted spending). Employers face tough penalties for any remaining underground hiring, nearly eliminating the shadow economy of exploited undocumented labor. This has side benefits: wages rise in some low-skill sectors because legal workers are on fair payrolls, and the exploitation of vulnerable workers (which also undercut labor standards for all) is curtailed. - Social Integration: The social credit system is leveraged in integration – for example, new immigrants who participate in civics classes and maintain good community standing might get faster advancement to citizenship (this was possibly a controversial aspect, but it incentivized integration without overt discrimination). By 2016, immigration is less of a hot-button issue than in the prior decade; the public sees the economy strong and unlawful immigration largely solved. Pop-culture politicians (perhaps a celebrity governor or two) still sometimes grandstand on immigration, but the technocratic overrides ensured policy stayed evidence-driven, preventing any rescinding of the reform that data showed was working.

One concrete metric: votes cast in elections. With millions of immigrants on path to citizenship, by 2016 many have become new voters, contributing to a steady increase in voter turnout. We estimate that voter turnout, which was ~60% in 2004 and 2008, climbs to ~65% by 2016 in our scenario. This is partly due to higher civic engagement from new citizens and partly due to the generally improved public mood – people feel the system is working, so they participate (contrasting with baseline where cynicism was growing). Additionally, making Election Day a holiday (one of the technocratic tweaks) and easier voting (automated registration, etc.) were implemented to boost democratic participation.

Governance and Public Sentiment

Technocratic Governance: A defining feature of this scenario is the replacement of some partisan or populist decision-making with simulation-tested, evidence-based policies. The government in 2006 created (either formally or de facto) a technocratic council – perhaps akin to an AI-driven policy lab – that could implement overrides on “failed political ideas.” In practice, this meant if a law was producing bad outcomes according to data, the council could quickly adjust or repeal it, without waiting for a sluggish Congress or facing ideological gridlock. For example, if year-round school had, contrary to expectation, shown negative results, the technocrats would have course-corrected (in our scenario it worked as intended, so no override was needed there). This approach leads to a highly adaptive policy environment: everything is piloted, measured, and fine-tuned (“tested like a simulation”). By 2016, public sentiment toward this style of governance is cautiously positive.

Early on, critics cried “undemocratic,” but the system proved its worth by delivering visible improvements in daily life – jobs, safety, housing, etc. The key was that technocracy didn’t replace democracy; rather, it guided it. Pop-culture candidates still ran for office, and indeed their charisma kept the public engaged. But unlike the pre-2006 era, once in office those figures adhered to the expert council’s recommendations for outcomes. One could say “politics as performance, policymaking as science” became the norm. Voters got the inspirational rhetoric from beloved celebrities-turned-leaders, but behind the scenes the heavy lifting was done by panels of economists, scientists, engineers, and other specialists.

Public Opinion Metrics: By 2016, polls show high satisfaction with economic direction and moderate trust in government – a stark contrast to mid-2000s skepticism. People remember the turmoil of the early 2000s (Iraq war, Katrina, partisan bickering) and see 2006 as a turning point. When asked in a 2016 Gallup survey, “Do you feel the country is on the right track?” about 60% say yes, compared to ~30% a decade earlier (baseline 2016 it was ~37% saying right track). Social stability is strong: crime is low, there are fewer protests or civil disturbances, and no major riots took place in the 2010s as they did in some baseline cities. The general mood is optimistic – a feeling that “we fixed a lot of what was broken.”

However, not everyone is pleased. There remain factions (perhaps among displaced elites or very ideological groups) who resent aspects of the new system. For example, some religious organizations balk at losing tax-exempt status and at the permissive stance on vices. The technocratic government monitored public sentiment closely – their big data analysis of social media and surveys allowed them to identify discontent early. They responded with outreach and tweaks – e.g. increasing UBI loans for those negatively affected or carving out limited exceptions (a small property tax break for historic church buildings, say, to appease faith groups). This agile responsiveness prevented minor discontents from ballooning into major backlash.

Voting and Democracy: Elections still occur on schedule. With easier voting and broader engagement, voter turnout rises, as noted. The presence of UBI also interestingly affects politics: it reduces desperation and thereby potentially reduces the appeal of demagogic promises. With basic needs met and data showing the system’s success, extreme partisanship cools. Third parties focusing on evidence (perhaps even a “Technocratic Party”) gain some following. But largely the two-party system endures, albeit both major parties have adapted to the new consensus (e.g. by 2016, neither party seriously talks of repealing UBI or re-criminalizing drugs – these have become as untouchable as Social Security due to popularity and success).

It’s notable that pop-culture figures did gain office – e.g. a famous entertainer as President in 2008 – but unlike in our timeline, the damage of potential incompetence is mitigated by the technocratic apparatus ensuring continuity and competent policy. In fact, some observers compare the U.S. in 2016 to Singapore – a place often cited for technocratic governance and stability – but done within a democratic framework. For instance, just as Singapore’s leadership credited homeownership for stability[31], U.S. leaders in 2016 proudly cite the 90% homeownership rate as a pillar of the American Dream revitalized.

International Standing: By 2016, America’s dramatic reforms have attracted global attention. Other countries are beginning to emulate pieces (some EU countries consider similar drug policies seeing U.S. success, and discussions of UBI are happening in advanced economies with the U.S. example as proof of concept). The U.S. economy’s strong growth with low inequality challenges the notion that you must choose between equity and efficiency. America’s soft power increases as well – ironically, legalizing vices and focusing military on science improved its moral leadership image, by showing pragmatism and humane policy. The U.S. is seen as less hypocritical (no longer incarcerating the most people while preaching freedom, etc.).

Conclusion

Summary of Key Outcomes by 2016: The 10-year forecast under the 2006 policy revolution shows a United States markedly better off across numerous metrics: - GDP: significantly higher (by roughly 10% more than baseline) and growing faster, driven by investment, innovation, and immigration[8]. - Employment: Unemployment fell to record lows (~3–4%), with near full employment and especially low youth unemployment due to apprenticeships[37]. - Incomes: Take-home pay up ~20% on average immediately from tax changes, with UBI ensuring a floor – poverty and inequality are greatly reduced. Middle-class wealth up from mass homeownership. - Public sentiment: majority feeling optimistic, high approval of “how democracy is working” (a sharp contrast to pre-2006). People experience greater personal freedom (can choose drugs or sex work legally) combined with greater economic security (UBI, jobs), a combination that yields contentment rather than chaos. - Social ills: Homelessness is all but ended through housing-first and homeownership (a transformative achievement). Overdose deaths and drug-related diseases plummet by 70–80%[21], as the public health approach proves far superior to the drug war. Violent crime edges downward thanks to swift justice and improved socioeconomics. Prison population is halved, freeing many to rejoin society and saving billions. - Civic life: Voter turnout and engagement are up. While politics still has flair (celebrity leaders), policymaking is rational – leading to fewer divisive culture wars. The country is more united on pursuing what works. Technocratic interventions, guided by continuous data, have avoided major policy failures or quickly corrected them. - Fiscal health: Tax revenues are robust (broadened base via VAT, vice taxes, land tax)[26]; spending is reoriented but deficit is contained or falling due to economic growth and controlled expenditures (military and welfare savings, plus CBO-predicted gains from immigration[11]). The national debt trajectory is improved relative to baseline, and credit ratings reflect confidence in the U.S.’s sustainable model. - International influence: The U.S. leads in tech and clean energy from its R&D surge, and its social outcomes now set positive examples. By solving many internal issues, the U.S. in 2016 has more bandwidth and credibility to lead globally.

In conclusion, the 2006 policy overhaul produces a thriving 2016 America. There were transitional hurdles – the years 2006–2008 saw frenzied adjustments: housing market restructuring, new institutions (for UBI distribution, social score management, etc.), and the need to maintain public buy-in. The 2008 global financial crisis tested this new system early, but the resilience and agility of technocratic policy proved its worth: the U.S. handled the recession quickly (with targeted UBI stimulus and bank reforms via technocratic decree), emerging stronger by 2010 than other nations. The data-driven, simulation-tested approach meant that when problems arose, they were addressed swiftly (for example, any uptick in, say, DUI incidents after drug legalization led to immediate tightening of driving laws and better public transit – averting what could have been a downside).

Not every metric is perfect – for instance, public sentiment still has a contingent who dislike the social credit aspect (some see it as dystopian monitoring). But the majority accept it as a reasonable trade-off (as one citizen quipped, “If having a good social score means my neighborhood is safe and I get my UBI – I’m fine with it”). By 2016, the U.S. stands as an experimental success story of combining libertarian freedoms (legal vices, low taxes) with social welfare (UBI, housing rights) and technocratic pragmatism. It’s a unique hybrid that achieved what many thought impossible: strong economic growth, social equity, and enhanced stability all at once.

Sources:

·         Tax reform & growth: Income tax vs VAT efficiency[1]; Land value tax and development[2][3].

·         Church taxation estimates[5][6].

·         UBI and GDP: Macro model projections of UBI impact[9].

·         Military vs domestic job creation: Brown University “Costs of War” study (2017)[15].

·         Public R&D returns higher than infrastructure[17].

·         Portugal drug decriminalization outcomes (overdose, HIV)[21][20].

·         Rhode Island prostitution decriminalization study (rapes ↓31%, STDs ↓40%)[23][24].

·         NIJ on deterrence: Certainty vs severity of punishment[28].

·         Governing article on homeownership and wealth (Singapore 91% ownership)[32][31].

·         CBO on immigration reform economic impact (GDP +5.4%, deficit ↓)[8][11].

·         Atlantic/BLS on German apprenticeship and youth unemployment[37][39]; Borgen magazine on apprenticeship and low youth joblessness[38].

·         Year-round schooling analysis (benefits for low-income students)[33].

·         NIJ “Five Things” summary on deterrence[28].

·         Tax Policy Center on gambling revenues (states collected $1.5B from sports betting 2022)[26].

[1] Economy prediction... What's yours? - Page 15 - Off-Ramp - Leasehackr Forum

https://forum.leasehackr.com/t/economy-prediction-whats-yours/665820?page=15

[2] [3] [4] A Taxing Conundrum: Land vs. Property | Darden Ideas to Action

https://ideas.darden.virginia.edu/land-vs-property-tax

[5] [6] [7] How much are churches not paying in taxes? | Fox Business

https://www.foxbusiness.com/lifestyle/how-much-churches-not-paying-taxes

[8] [11] [40] [41] CBO Report: Immigration Reform Will Shrink the Deficit and Grow the Economy | whitehouse.gov

https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/blog/2013/06/18/cbo-report-immigration-reform-will-shrink-deficit-and-grow-economy

[9] [12] Starting the Conversation: The Economics of a Universal Basic Income - Roosevelt Institute

https://rooseveltinstitute.org/blog/starting-the-conversation-the-economics-of-a-universal-basic-income/

[10] How Does the U.S. Spend Its Foreign Aid? | Council on Foreign Relations

https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/how-does-us-spend-its-foreign-aid

[13] [14] Central Bank Independence and Inflation | St. Louis Fed

https://www.stlouisfed.org/about-us/resources/why-fed-is-well-designed-central-bank/central-bank-independence-inflation

[15] [16] Study says domestic, not military spending, fuels job growth | Brown University

https://www.brown.edu/news/2017-05-25/jobscow

[17] [18] New Research Suggests Returns on Federal Investments in R&D Are Much Higher Than Current Estimates | Association of American Universities (AAU)

https://www.aau.edu/newsroom/leading-research-universities-report/new-research-suggests-returns-federal-investments-rd

[19] [20] [21] [22] [25] drugpolicy.org

https://drugpolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/dpa-drug-decriminalization-portugal-health-human-centered-approach_0.pdf

[23] [24] Study: Rhode Island accidentally decriminalized prostitution, and good things happened | Vox

https://www.vox.com/2014/7/15/5898187/prostitution-rhode-island-decriminalized

[26] How do taxes on lotteries, casinos, sports betting, and other types of state-sanctioned gambling work? | Tax Policy Center

https://taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/how-do-taxes-lotteries-casinos-sports-betting-and-other-types-state-sanctioned

[27] Legalized Gambling Increases Irresponsible Betting Behavior ...

https://today.ucsd.edu/story/legalized-gambling-increases-irresponsible-betting-behavior-especially-among-low-income-populations

[28] [30] Five Things About Deterrence | National Institute of Justice

https://nij.ojp.gov/topics/articles/five-things-about-deterrence

[29] FSU researcher probes the logic of punishment as deterrent in new ...

https://criminology.fsu.edu/news/fsu-researcher-probes-logic-punishment-deterrent-new-book

[31] [32]  Singapore's approach to housing policy | East Asia Forum

https://eastasiaforum.org/2019/03/15/singapores-mechanism-design-approach-to-housing-policy/

[33] [36] The Benefits and Challenges of Year-Round Schooling

https://online.ysu.edu/degrees/education/msed/curriculum-instruction-education-literacy/year-round-school-in-the-us/

[34] Decriminalizing prostitution linked to fewer STDs and rapes | UCLA

https://newsroom.ucla.edu/releases/decriminalizing-prostitution-linked-to-fewer-stds-and-rapes

[35] Year-Round Schooling: Solving Summer Learning Loss Effective

https://www.thinkacademy.ca/blog/year-round-schooling-summer-learning-loss-2/

[37] [39] Jobs for Americans: A Lesson from Germany

https://www.theatlantic.com/sponsored/jpmc-2017/jobs-for-americans/1296/

[38] Germany’s Apprenticeship Model Boosts Workforce and Economy - BORGEN

https://www.borgenmagazine.com/germanys-apprenticeship-model/

Poly Sci Sim V1 

Core Philosophy

• Experimental governance that accepts short-term chaos for long-term efficiency and innovation.
• Technocracy + direct democracy prioritized over tradition.
• Government is open-source and auditable by citizens.
• Reality-TV presidency is largely symbolic — designed for spectacle while experts and automation run policy.

Government Structure (4 Branch Model)

1. Legislative
2. Executive (symbolic, reality-TV style)
3. Technocracy (AI & expert policy engine)
4. Direct Democracy (citizens vote directly, but must pass policy-literacy quizzes)

Economic System

• No income or sales tax.
• Single national VAT (20–25%).
• No property tax → replaced by land value tax on undeveloped land.
• Corporate land ownership banned.
• Churches taxed like businesses unless proven charitable.

Policy Proposals (“The Crazy Ideas”)

Government & Social

• Replace welfare with UBI or loans, allocated based on a social/criminal score.
• Fund journalism based on truth-scoring.
• Strip all foreign aid, redirect to science/tech investment.
• Open-source government & education for full transparency.
• Presidency as a debate show / cage match spectacle every 4 years.
• Technocracy veto power when evidence contradicts populist policies.

Economy & Labor

• Legalize, regulate, and tax all recreational drugs & prostitution (+$50B/year revenue).
• Tax gambling (including sports betting, online casinos).
• Shift ~50% of military spending into AI, cybersecurity, healthcare, R&D, space.
• Rebuild trades: replace college with 2–4 years paid apprenticeships.
• Eliminate summer break; replace with rotating year-round schooling or workforce prep.

Housing & Land

• One-home-per-person rule: no private rentals; homeowners can host others.
• Corporations barred from owning land/homes.
• Undeveloped land subject to land value tax.
• National parks/wildlife funded from land value tax revenue.
• Risk: housing shortages & higher prices if supply isn’t expanded.

Immigration

• Relaxed entry for skilled/unskilled labor (+3% workforce growth annually).
• Stricter deportations for non-compliance.
• Improves productivity/diversity but may spark nationalist backlash.

Education

• Year-round schooling → graduation rates +10% in 10 years.
• Apprenticeship focus → workforce readiness +15%.
• College enrollment in non-STEM falls ~20%.
• Teacher burnout risk (-10% retention).

Justice & Crime

• Harsher penalties (incl. express death penalty) for violent crime.
• Slight deterrence (~5%), saves $20B/yr incarceration costs.
• High public backlash initially.

Forecast Scenarios

Scenario 1: Full Policy Implementation

• GDP growth ~+3% annually.
• Public sentiment volatile at first, stabilizing high.
• Homelessness falls sharply with enforced ownership + UBI.
• Strong global standing via science/cybersecurity investments.

Scenario 2: Economic Focus Only

• GDP growth +2% annually.
• Social stability remains steady.
• High satisfaction due to fairness perception.

Scenario 3: Authoritarian Tilt

• GDP growth ~+1% (dragged by dissent).
• Public sentiment low; high unrest/protests.
• Risk of legitimacy collapse.