I bet on the whole if you compare malaria, a single disease wherein the interests of every human on earth are aligned with no competition toward any limited resource (0 people want any cases of malaria, 7 billion people are better off if the disease falls off the face of the planet by tomorrow) with something like housing where lots of people are competing for a limited resource, then housing is a lot more difficult to solve in a sustainable way than malaria is. There is some chance of eradicating malaria worldwide in the next 20 years, and then just forgetting about it, the way we have for smallpox (eradicated by vaccination - literally smallpox has been eradicated from the face of the planet through vaccination to such an extent that vaccines no longer even need to be given to anyone.)<p>There is <i>no</i> chance of &quot;eradicating&quot; and completely solving the issue of housing for every human worldwide in the next 20 years.  (It&#x27;s a ridiculous thought on its face).  Because it&#x27;s a limited resource people are competing for, with lots and lots of overlapping interests going back thousands of years and indeed perhaps responsible for much&#x2F;most of history itself.<p>malaria is not even within an order of magnitude of difficulty.  I mean we&#x27;re talking about the difference between $100 billion and $100 trillion. (to completely solve the problem for everyone forever.)<p>so yeah, I would plot them in the same boat (as you put it).