Compared to say Afghanistan maybe, but compared to other developed countries, not really. Political gridlock for most of the time, and a two party system that practically guarantees a constant back and forth with the ones currently in power spending most of their time to undo what the previous ones did during their time in power.

> high trust society (at least for day to day interactions)

That's not the impression i get from the people screaming they need to carry weapons to feel safe.

> but the biggest weakness going forward is a smaller proportion of young workers.

Today's young workers in the US (but that's not in any way a US specific phenomenon) feel that many things that were normal for the previous generation (e.g. home ownership) are simply out of reach. Adding more young people without fixing the underlying issues causing the already existing ones to struggle hard is not going to make anything better.

This sounds like the definition of stable. But what I actually meant by stable is where you can reasonably expect legal decisions and regulations to be predictable and hence plan around-able. Contrasted to a place where you have to pay unknown bribes to shifting allegiances, etc.

>That's not the impression i get from the people screaming they need to carry weapons to feel safe.

I would bet 90% of Americans do not go to sleep worrying about safety, or choosing to carry guns all the time because of it. But the high trust I was talking about was for things like being able to trust the plumber you called knows his stuff, or that you will get paid on your regular payday, or the food and medicine you buy will be as advertised.

> Today's young workers in the US (but that's not in any way a US specific phenomenon) feel that many things that were normal for the previous generation (e.g. home ownership) are simply out of reach.

Prices are a function of supply and demand. The US is not lacking in supply of land, but maybe it is lacking in supply of land near desirable regions experiencing economic growth. Old people are not going to be able to develop the land into homes, nor are they going to spur economic growth. Young people raising children does that.

> Adding more young people without fixing the underlying issues causing the already existing ones to struggle hard is not going to make anything better.

Adding young people, especially qualified young people who produce things people want, especially outside the country’s borders, is exactly what would make things better. It would increase demand for products and services, without increasing debt.

I don’t want to dive too deeply into this, as it isn’t the heart of your comment - but I do want to say that as someone who carries a firearm every day, it’s not because I feel unsafe. Rather, it’s because I see it as my responsibility to maintain that safety, not the responsibility of someone else (i.e., police).

It’s based in ideology, not inadequate governance.

Is this not stability?

No? Maybe one could claim it results in some sort of equilibrium, but radically changing policy on important topics such as environmental protection, corporation taxes, infrastructure, etc. every 4 years is not stability. Not to mention that every topic becomes an instant partisan issue - if one party says something is good, the other has to fight against it, regardless of merits.