Manhattan is arguably America's most iconic city, and more arguably, its only 'real' city.
But its own laws have made the buildings that make it so iconic illegal to build more of🧵
Many of the existing buildings in Manhattan that you couldn't make today are too tall by current standards.
Many of the existing buildings in Manhattan that you couldn't make today have too many apartments by current standards.
Many of the existing buildings in Manhattan that you couldn't make today have too much space dedicated to business by current standards.
Many of the existing buildings in Manhattan that you couldn't make today have building footprints that are too tall by current standards.
But the buildings that make New York tall, dense, and filled with architectural juxtaposition also made New York so iconic, they made it more livable than it would've been otherwise, and they made it great.
The new laws simply don't respect the old vision for New York.
This problem isn't unique to New York either.
In tons of American cities, existing builds are illegal by new standards that are generally not justified by any sort of safety or quality concerns, but which instead are driven by local interest groups and dumb policymakers.
For example, in San Francisco, 54% of all homes that exist there are illegal to build today!
President Trump just sent a hugely important memo to all agency heads.
It instructs them to inform courts filing injunctions against them that, per the law, plaintiffs have to post a security equal to the potential costs of the injunction to the Federal Government.
So, if you, a plaintiff demand the government make good on a payment of $2 billion that they were going to cancel, you must post $2 billion, just in case it's later found that the injunction was wrongful.
This means the injunctions will stop.
Activists groups are trying to get injunctions against the government to force massive payments to continue.
They will lose many of these battles, but now the battles probably won't even take place in most cases, because these securities are enormous and they won't make them.
On the right, you can see states with policies that give schools more money when their students are diagnosed with autism.
When these policies pass, autism diagnoses increase by almost 25%!
Incentives really do matter for autism diagnoses.
For example, people on SSI receive larger payouts if they're diagnosed with autism.
After the economic downturn in 2008, the most heavily impacted age group started getting diagnosed with autism at an incredible rate:
Similarly, because laws in many places mandate providing more resources to autistic children, parents have sought to get their mentally retarded children diagnosed as autistic.
Using California as an example, more than a quarter of the rise 1992-2005 was due to this:
During Bernie's second set of questions in today's Senate confirmation hearing, @DrJBhattacharya came very close to describing the U.K.'s RECOVERY trial and arguing that the U.S. should emulate that sort of pragmatic clinical trial.
Bernie cut him off, but he shouldn't have🧵
The RECOVERY Trial was the in-patient equivalent to the community-level PRINCIPLE Trial.
Both were trials run in the U.K. to figure out what works for keeping people off of serious treatments like ventilators and out of the morgue after they've been infected with COVID-19.
RECOVERY was an amazing success, but it can't be done in the U.S., because America's healthcare resources are not aligned like they are in the U.K.
In Britain, the NHS and the country's death index (how deaths are tracked) enable people to be easily signed up and tracked.