As I wrote in my book Lessons From Eviction Court: How We Can End Our Housing Crisis, the United States once made a commitment to housing all our people, and made phenomenal progress on fulfilling that promise. From the end of the Great Depression of the 1930s through the ’70s, very few people in our country were homeless. Those who were homeless were mostly older men living in cheap hotels, so-called flophouses. At the time, researchers predicted that even that level of homelessness would be eliminated by the end of the 1970s.

https://jacobin.com/2025/09/affordable-public-housing-policy-homelessness-evictions/

As part of the New Deal, the United States created the Home Owners’ Loan Corporation and the Federal Housing Administration. These agencies and the Veterans Administration purchased, insured, and issued mortgages to protect at-risk homeowners. They also provided millions of others with opportunities to buy houses through significantly lower down payments and interest rates, often with monthly payments that were less expensive than renting.
"From the end of the Great Depression of the 1930s through the ’70s, very few people in our country were homeless."

The New Deal also launched public housing efforts via the Public Works Administration, which built over fifty public housing projects across the country. A few years later, the United States Housing Act of 1937 established a permanent federal framework for public housing through the United States Housing Authority, providing subsidies to local agencies for building and operating public housing specifically for low-income families. Consequently, construction of public housing ramped up even further.

This was the beginning of a decades-long effort to eliminate the nation’s housing woes. In 1948, the United States signed the United Nations’ Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The following year, the American Housing Act of 1949 set the goal of ensuring a “decent home in a suitable living environment for every American family.” For many years, the United States took that goal seriously. Recognizing that affordable housing cannot be left to the for-profit market, we made the significant government investment necessary to fulfill the promise of housing Americans.

In the 1960s and ’70s, home purchase support was buttressed by rent support programs, along with the creation of the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). Public housing projects were again on the rise during this period, with many famous federally funded projects being erected in cities across the country.

Then, quite suddenly, our nation abandoned those noble commitments. In the early 1980s, President Ronald Reagan and a compliant Congress slashed funding for affordable housing by nearly 80 percent.

https://jacobin.com/2025/09/affordable-public-housing-policy-homelessness-evictions/

Le imprese recuperate dai lavoratori argentini (Ert) rappresentano il movimento contemporaneo più emblematico di autogestione del lavoro, non solo in America latina ma a livello globale. Nate negli anni Novanta durante il boom del neoliberismo, hanno acquisito visibilità mondiale a partire dalla crisi argentina del 2001, con oltre un centinaio di occupazioni di fabbriche e imprese di ogni tipo. Attualmente, il movimento conta 400 cooperative di lavoratori in tutto il territorio argentino, dalle fabbriche industriali alle aziende alimentari e ai fornitori di servizi di ogni tipo, comprese scuole e ospedali. Circa 13.200 lavoratori e lavoratrici vivono del lavoro autogestito di queste aziende fallite e abbandonate dal capitale e rimesse in funzione grazie alla lotta, alla volontà e alla creatività dei loro operai e operaie. La comparsa delle imprese recuperate ha riportato al centro del dibattito della classe operaia e dei movimenti sociali argentini l’esperienza storica dell’autogestione, al di là del cooperativismo istituzionale e, grazie alla rilevanza internazionale del movimento, anche in molte altre parti del mondo

https://jacobinitalia.it/difendere-le-imprese-recuperate-anche-contro-milei/

The article argues that the United States has effectively become a “police state” through a quiet but extensive consolidation of local, state, and federal law enforcement with the military. Over the past six months, agencies like local police, ICE, the National Guard, and federal agencies have aligned to enforce Trump administration priorities, blurring the distinctions between jurisdictions and transforming police into a political instrument of the state. This process has not been formally announced; it has occurred quietly, with personnel, resources, and operational rules increasingly coordinated.

Examples of this coordination include the Los Angeles Police Department working alongside ICE and National Guard units to violently suppress protests against immigration raids, despite previously being a “sanctuary” department. Similarly, D.C. Metropolitan Police have formally cooperated with ICE, conducting immigration checkpoints and providing backup. The article emphasizes that local police routinely participate in federal operations, surveillance, and crowd control, effectively merging roles and responsibilities that were once distinct.

Technological surveillance has also expanded dramatically. ICE and other agencies are using advanced tools such as Israeli spyware, Clearview AI facial recognition, license plate reader databases, and Palantir software to monitor individuals, including protesters. Local police networks are increasingly integrated into these federal systems, providing access to a wide array of data. The expansion of budgets, recruitment, and resources for these agencies reinforces the systemic consolidation of enforcement power.

The article highlights how political leaders across the spectrum, including Democratic officials in “blue” cities and states, have facilitated or accepted these expansions. Examples include Mayor Muriel Bowser in D.C., Mayor Karen Bass in Los Angeles, and Governor Gavin Newsom in California, all of whom have leveraged federal priorities or funding to enhance local police capacities. The result is a nationwide alignment of law enforcement, creating a system that operates as a unified political force rather than a collection of independent agencies.

In essence, the author argues that the United States is now a United Police State, where distinctions between law enforcement levels and military intervention have eroded. Propaganda, technology, and political direction have merged, creating a coordinated apparatus ready to suppress dissent and enforce administration priorities. This convergence pre-dates Trump’s current policies but has intensified under his administration, making the police and security apparatus a central instrument of control over the population.

If you want, I can also break down the key mechanisms and examples of how this “police state” consolidation works in practice—it’s quite detailed.

https://theintercept.com/2025/10/04/united-police-state-of-america/

Is the answer then for countries to shut out foreign investment entirely? Not necessarily – the success stories suggest a more nuanced approach. Foreign capital can aid development, but only when countries harness it strategically. The East Asian Tigers exemplified this balance. South Korea and Taiwan borrowed heavily and welcomed joint ventures, but required foreign firms to partner with local companies and transfer technology, directing capital into strategic sectors as part of broader industrial policy. At the same time, they built up domestic champions in those sectors so that foreign operations would not dominate indefinitely.

This approach echoed earlier industrial powers such as the US and Japan: leverage foreign capital, but avoid dependency. South Korea in the 1960s and ’70s licensed technology and hosted foreign factories, but always with the goal of enabling local firms to absorb knowledge and compete globally. By the 1980s, it had nurtured world-class companies in autos, steel and electronics, loosening FDI restrictions only after domestic firms were firmly established.

China later followed a similar template. In the 1980s and ’90s, it attracted investors with cheap labour and huge markets, but demanded joint ventures and technology transfer. Volkswagen, for instance, could enter only through a partnership with a state-owned firm. Through such arrangements, Chinese automakers gradually gained industry knowledge. Similarly, in electronics, Huawei, Lenovo and other firms emerged after years of absorbing foreign technology and investment under guided conditions.

https://aeon.co/essays/how-foreign-capital-can-hinder-or-help-economic-development