[lbriner]

The problem is that politicians and armchair critics prefer simple sound-bites like "government spending caused this problem" or perhaps "a lack of government spending caused this problem", I can't imagine how many frowns you would get in parliament/congress if your explanation of why inflation is so high was as long as the article, even if it was much more accurate than a sound bite.

People don't like the fact that the world is complicated and more inter-dependent than ever. I guess that's why some people go and live in the wilderness.

[kqr]

This is why I dislike the popularity contests we call "democracy" today. If you so much as hint at the complexity of questions, if you happen to admit that something is a trade-off, or that there are risks with a policy, you're out of the system in seconds.

Not that I have a better suggestion, mind you. Maybe sortition with an advisory panel of experts? But how would the experts be chosen?

It would be easy to draw from the top ranks of some guild system -- but probably also highly inequitable, as guilds tend to restrict the profession to their likes.

[helen___keller]

This is why political discussion, and partisan discussion in particular, is almost universally worthless.

Such discourse can be compared to memes, in the literal sense of the word. One sentence digs that seem to ring true get shared and thrown at political opponents. Nothing of value is created in such discourse, but the more effective memes proliferate through society and give advantage in voting season.