Same ideas, different format. This shapes how your content arrives.
Mundi works differently depending on where you're starting from.
Five lenses. Each one is a complete 5-minute experience. Pick one now — the others stay here for whenever.
No wrong answers. This is just your starting point — we come back to it at the end.
We revisit this at the end. Most people are surprised.
The others stay here. Come back for them whenever.
In 1990 this ratio was 3.5×. It crossed 5× in the early 2000s and hasn't recovered. Something structural changed — during a period when the people writing housing policy were overwhelmingly homeowners themselves.
2–3 sentences. Your actual view. Don't try to sound smart.
Sitting with what you wrote before showing you the other side
The strongest case against you: Homeowners aren't a conspiracy — they're a majority. 65% of UK adults own their home. Any politician who seriously threatened house prices would lose the election. The system isn't broken or rigged. It's working exactly as designed — it's just designed for people who already own things. That's not corruption. That's democracy.
You landed on the sharpest version of this question. Most people stop at "the government should build more." You went further and asked why they didn't — and that's where the real explanation lives. The term economists use is concentrated benefits, dispersed costs: when a policy makes a small group significantly richer, and a large group only slightly worse off, the small group fights hard and the large group barely notices — until it's too late.
People who started with "I'm not sure" were the most likely to change their view — and most ended up in the government-incentives camp after the Economist lens. You're following the pattern. The Political Scientist lens had the highest view-change rate of all five.