Well he did say way back.
The could mean land grabs or Native American reservations.
Or the weird rent laws which make the non-salaries of the characters of Friends meet their housing needs in NYC...

We're furrin y'know.

It's interesting that this is seen by an American as a 'feudal relationship' with the state. That's not how I see it. I see it as the state being of and for the people. It's democratic not feudal.

Yes, we went the suburban sprawl, bedroom community, pave paradise route because we had the land.

Adak said socialism always fails. In my eyes free market economics always fails and it is social policies that clear up the mess.

It wasn't social security that broke the bank it was the bankers.

Please read this as perspective not judgement.

Because of our history, I and many Americans see property ownership as one mark of economic stability and a pretty basic freedom. My ancestors were disenfranchised in Ireland but regained control over their lives purchasing cheap land in the early 1800's in America. We have subsidized housing in the US but it is seen as a temporary condition except in communities where multi-generational poverty has taken hold and even there it is seen as a problem to hopefully solve not an acceptable situation. In my part of the country inexpensive housing is still available. My work is split between here and here. As you can see their are many properties for sale which are attainable at a low income plus significant sweat equity.

Wasn't your healthcare system was also born out of ww2?

America's mess was largely created under Nixon's wage and price controls rather than a market failure. Wage limitations lead corporations to seek other ways of compensating workers thus the connection between work and healthcare and the insertion of insurance companies, compensated by employers to run systems, between people and their doctors. I don't know what would have developed without Tricky Dick's machinations but that is why we have third parties profiting from what should be a more direct relationship.

Since the Thatcher years that is how many Brits view property ownership. Unfortunately that means we pretty much broke social provision; without actually having the kind of build and buy capacity you have over there to pick up the slack.

The other downside of course is that if property ownership is a basic freedom and sign of stability (and even of maturity in terms of lifecycle) then that encourages people who can't actually afford to buy a house to explore and utilise insecure mortgages.

House prices over here skyrocketed as a result. Though the bubble burst and the housing market 'crashed' it never went down to anything like previous levels. The average age of a first time buyer is now pushing late 30s. And without social housing London would be inhabited exclusively by the wealthy and those few working class who managed to buy houses before the values soared and didn't then sell them to speculators.

I really don't want to live in a society in which the wealthy inhabit one city and those who service them travel in from another.