“More broadly, Klein underestimates the value of rulemaking and enforcement. The alternative to a society governed by laws (in which lawyers play an important role) is one ruled by fiat.”
This quote is wild, considering that almost every other Western nation does not use judicial review for infrastructure project and usually just use administrative law.
I love how some comments assume because the abundance agenda might appeal to some Republicans, it must be bad. Seems like ideology is more important to some than growth. Democrats need to expand the tent.
You clearly haven’t read the book. It’s about building low-income housing, infrastructure, public transportation, national industrial policy, health policy, and building green energy and transmission lines. The book is about what the government can do to help people. Not a book about corporations.
These are bread and butter issues for democrats -- things the state could do. You may disagree with the priorities, but you need to represent the abundance argument correctly. Not some straw man you've created.
Bro I don’t need to think harder about the strawman you’re accusing me of creating. Maybe you should consider the possibility that I’m a lot more intelligent than yourself.
Calling something “derangement syndrome” is not an argument.
Please look at how people like Jon Chait, Josh Barro, and Noah Smith - all explicitly anti-left - are reacting, each having published pieces that assert that the book is obviously intended to be an attack on the left wing of the Democratic party and is merely written in a way designed to avoid saying so directly; very bizarre to fall on your fainting couch because left Democrats are naturally critical of the book
Hey now he's married to a woman, that I can accept. But if he was gay and not married, I would take offense if you said there's no way he would want to.
"The Cult of Smart" is one of the most beloved books in the "human biodiversity" and racial eugenics canon.
If a non-representative sample of Ezra's fans being anti-left make his book anti-left, does the fact that Richard Hanania, Cremieux, Emil Kirkegaard, Steve Sailer, Steve Hsu, as well as tons of TESCREAL weirdos in Scott Alexander's comunity love Cult of Smart make you a scientific racist, and your book the overworked educator's version of The Turner Diaries?
I have a pet Theory that viewing diversity of opinion as a negative has been such a significant part of the left for 80+ years partially because their ideas are so stuck in the 19th century. When people are still founding their views on marx, it’s obvious to everyone but the acolytes that history has shown those ideas fail. So it becomes a religion and not a political movement. religions punish blasphemy they don’t celebrate it.
I had an instructive conversation with an old friend who’s gone far left that illustrates this point. I was advocating for some of picket ideas, which appeal to me because they have a leftist sense of justice and empathy, but actually try to learn from the lessons of the last 150 years. My friend said he didn’t even consider Piketty’s ideas because he admitted he hadn’t read all of Marx, and was dismissive of Marx's ideas because they were all theoretical or sociological observation of his time.
The unions stuff is so annoying, because unionism is literally feudalism. It's a guild. If you want to get away from neo-feudalism, you need to let go of unionism. Most working class people aren't skilled workers in unions -- those people are middle class -- rather, they're unskilled workers in retail, food, and entertainment. They work as cashiers, clerks, secretaries, not as plumbers, electricians, and roofers.
The anti-abundance left seems to have this fetish for blue collar men based out of guilt or overcompensation. Blue collar men are famously right-wing, ever since truckers started listening to Rush Limbaugh. So unionism is this one neat trick where problem-glasses girl-bosses can link arms with tobacco-chewing wife-beaters to form an effective coalition to win elections.
And yes, this has actually worked for the last 50 years. However, Trump's overtures to unions may change this. In any case, it's not actually decreasing income inequality or lifting people out of poverty, because #1, wages in skilled manual labor have gone up; #2, suppressing the supply of housing actually lowers demand for skilled laborers, which also suppresses their wages; #3, most poor people aren't skilled laborers, they're unskilled laborers.
If Democrats were serious about lifting people out of poverty, they would focus on trying to raise wages and lower the cost of living for cashiers, waiters, and low-level construction workers. And because this kind of unskilled labor is so insecure (hiring and firing, season labor), it doesn't make sense to try to make the jobs themselves better. You have to focus on externalities -- education, healthcare, housing.
Why not unionize cashiers, waiters and low level construction workers? Seems like a good way to make the jobs better. Why not require every company (above a certain size) to enter into collective bargaining with their workers automatically? Just legally define any such situation as automatically constituting a chapter of a nationwide labor union, then give them a small grant they can only spend on legal representation for the bargaining. Call it the "Unionize to Revive the American Dream" act. Punish executives that try to union bust with jail time. Continuously fine companies that don't have a collective bargaining agreement in place.
Grow tf up. You mock “abundance agenda” detractors for calling this repackaged Reaganomics, then immediately dive into supply side rhetoric.
I only made it a couple paragraphs into this writeup. I cannot process your lack of self-awareness.
The abundance agenda is a full-stop recommitment to Reaganomics by pencilneck softbois desperate to protect the passive revenue streams they were raised upon.
So Ezra Klein gave credit to the rally term “abundance agenda” to his co authority Derek Thompson and before they joined forced for this book was using his own term “supply side progressivism” about how governments can use a mix of private and public sector factors to promote progressive outcomes. Even the previous book had an optimistic belief that achieving your outcomes moves the Overton window and moves the country in a progressive direction. And hamstringing proceduralism is the boogeyman that needs to be undone.
I’d be curious to hear more about the weirdness of the Revolving Door Project. Before this article, I never browsed their site - I only read some of their posts I’d seen linked around.
They do seem weirdly obsessive in a way I didn’t realize
More b.s. from the same folks that thought reducing fraud and waste in the government would balance the budget. Would be nice if all these "everything would be great if there were no regulations" types had even a rudimentary understanding of the regulatory process or were willing to concede that other interest groups had an equal right to advance their agenda. But, to wrap this in the "Dems need to embrace .... in order to regain power" is bullshit.
I think some of the obsession might be due to the fact that they are, at the moment, in terms of broad popular appeal, the most influential "public intellectual" liberals? (Which says a lot about the differences between the modern left and right nowadays.)
It is not surprising that outsiders who do not understand the trust centers within democratic party politics are either confused or think they have caught people they already disagree with making bad arguments.
Newsflash: No one is against Abundance per se. FDR era Democrats used government to create massive abundance. Klein et al acknowledge this. Klein himself says he wants government to be able to take action. But the book does a bait and switch.
It lays out the following premise:
FDR era Dems used government for abundance. True.
Ralph Nader era Dems hobbled Government though litigation. True.
Now here comes the bait and switch:
3. Get rid of Ralph Naderism so the private sector can do supply side stuff. Wait, what?
The book correctly critiques Naderism but it does not bring back FDR in any obvious way. If you remove Naderism but don’t bring back FDR that is just plain old neoliberalism.
I am sure that by 2028, there will be a new synthesis whereby the left will accept a roll back of Naderism but the party will insert more FDR on top of Klein+Thompson’s feeble attempt at abundance.
It’s always odd when the party that made stealing legal starts talking about how we need to strictly enforce laws around building. It seems like the enforcement of laws only matters when not enforcing them would be beneficial.
“More broadly, Klein underestimates the value of rulemaking and enforcement. The alternative to a society governed by laws (in which lawyers play an important role) is one ruled by fiat.”
This quote is wild, considering that almost every other Western nation does not use judicial review for infrastructure project and usually just use administrative law.
It’s especially wild coming from the left who’ve made stealing legal in their cities.
Grow tf up and use your real name like a bigboy if you’re gonna spew garbage nonsense. You have less than zero credibility.
I mean I can’t speak for most cities but San Francisco quite literally made it legal to steal for items under $950
bot
bot
bot
I mean you can say “bot” all you want but this was quite literally the law lol
go away bot
Soft
Soft
Soft
go away clearly a bot go away
Great that you got that screed off your chest. Do you have a valid critique of “Basically”’s point?
Using your real name on the internet is for influencers and retards lol. There is no upside and huge downsides
go away bot
I love how some comments assume because the abundance agenda might appeal to some Republicans, it must be bad. Seems like ideology is more important to some than growth. Democrats need to expand the tent.
Yes, to many of us there are more important things than “growth.” jfc
You clearly haven’t read the book. It’s about building low-income housing, infrastructure, public transportation, national industrial policy, health policy, and building green energy and transmission lines. The book is about what the government can do to help people. Not a book about corporations.
These are bread and butter issues for democrats -- things the state could do. You may disagree with the priorities, but you need to represent the abundance argument correctly. Not some straw man you've created.
wtf does your reply have to do with my comment?
Think real hard.
Bro I don’t need to think harder about the strawman you’re accusing me of creating. Maybe you should consider the possibility that I’m a lot more intelligent than yourself.
Well you’re certainly more thin skinned. I look forward to reading more unhinged replies from you.
I have read the book.
I disagree with it.
Calling something “derangement syndrome” is not an argument.
Please look at how people like Jon Chait, Josh Barro, and Noah Smith - all explicitly anti-left - are reacting, each having published pieces that assert that the book is obviously intended to be an attack on the left wing of the Democratic party and is merely written in a way designed to avoid saying so directly; very bizarre to fall on your fainting couch because left Democrats are naturally critical of the book
He's not gonna fuck you dude
Hey now he's married to a woman, that I can accept. But if he was gay and not married, I would take offense if you said there's no way he would want to.
What a joke of an argument.
"The Cult of Smart" is one of the most beloved books in the "human biodiversity" and racial eugenics canon.
If a non-representative sample of Ezra's fans being anti-left make his book anti-left, does the fact that Richard Hanania, Cremieux, Emil Kirkegaard, Steve Sailer, Steve Hsu, as well as tons of TESCREAL weirdos in Scott Alexander's comunity love Cult of Smart make you a scientific racist, and your book the overworked educator's version of The Turner Diaries?
Because, by your logic, the answer would be yes.
Increasing supply is Econ 101.
Abundance is a completely milquetoast idea. Which is why it's great and should have bipartisan appeal.
If leftists oppose it, you know it's good. People who don't understand Econ 101 should not be in positions of power.
Hey stablegenius how did your ancestors’ ownership/rentier class earn passive income before the Emancipation Proclamation?
I have a pet Theory that viewing diversity of opinion as a negative has been such a significant part of the left for 80+ years partially because their ideas are so stuck in the 19th century. When people are still founding their views on marx, it’s obvious to everyone but the acolytes that history has shown those ideas fail. So it becomes a religion and not a political movement. religions punish blasphemy they don’t celebrate it.
I had an instructive conversation with an old friend who’s gone far left that illustrates this point. I was advocating for some of picket ideas, which appeal to me because they have a leftist sense of justice and empathy, but actually try to learn from the lessons of the last 150 years. My friend said he didn’t even consider Piketty’s ideas because he admitted he hadn’t read all of Marx, and was dismissive of Marx's ideas because they were all theoretical or sociological observation of his time.
The unions stuff is so annoying, because unionism is literally feudalism. It's a guild. If you want to get away from neo-feudalism, you need to let go of unionism. Most working class people aren't skilled workers in unions -- those people are middle class -- rather, they're unskilled workers in retail, food, and entertainment. They work as cashiers, clerks, secretaries, not as plumbers, electricians, and roofers.
The anti-abundance left seems to have this fetish for blue collar men based out of guilt or overcompensation. Blue collar men are famously right-wing, ever since truckers started listening to Rush Limbaugh. So unionism is this one neat trick where problem-glasses girl-bosses can link arms with tobacco-chewing wife-beaters to form an effective coalition to win elections.
And yes, this has actually worked for the last 50 years. However, Trump's overtures to unions may change this. In any case, it's not actually decreasing income inequality or lifting people out of poverty, because #1, wages in skilled manual labor have gone up; #2, suppressing the supply of housing actually lowers demand for skilled laborers, which also suppresses their wages; #3, most poor people aren't skilled laborers, they're unskilled laborers.
If Democrats were serious about lifting people out of poverty, they would focus on trying to raise wages and lower the cost of living for cashiers, waiters, and low-level construction workers. And because this kind of unskilled labor is so insecure (hiring and firing, season labor), it doesn't make sense to try to make the jobs themselves better. You have to focus on externalities -- education, healthcare, housing.
Why not unionize cashiers, waiters and low level construction workers? Seems like a good way to make the jobs better. Why not require every company (above a certain size) to enter into collective bargaining with their workers automatically? Just legally define any such situation as automatically constituting a chapter of a nationwide labor union, then give them a small grant they can only spend on legal representation for the bargaining. Call it the "Unionize to Revive the American Dream" act. Punish executives that try to union bust with jail time. Continuously fine companies that don't have a collective bargaining agreement in place.
Because it shuts people out of the job market. I'm talking about UBI.
Grow tf up. You mock “abundance agenda” detractors for calling this repackaged Reaganomics, then immediately dive into supply side rhetoric.
I only made it a couple paragraphs into this writeup. I cannot process your lack of self-awareness.
The abundance agenda is a full-stop recommitment to Reaganomics by pencilneck softbois desperate to protect the passive revenue streams they were raised upon.
So Ezra Klein gave credit to the rally term “abundance agenda” to his co authority Derek Thompson and before they joined forced for this book was using his own term “supply side progressivism” about how governments can use a mix of private and public sector factors to promote progressive outcomes. Even the previous book had an optimistic belief that achieving your outcomes moves the Overton window and moves the country in a progressive direction. And hamstringing proceduralism is the boogeyman that needs to be undone.
I’d be curious to hear more about the weirdness of the Revolving Door Project. Before this article, I never browsed their site - I only read some of their posts I’d seen linked around.
They do seem weirdly obsessive in a way I didn’t realize
My friend, let's call her R., knew him biblically. She told me she couldn't date him because he was too much of a dork.
Malcolm Harris read the book, my friend:
https://thebaffler.com/latest/whats-the-matter-with-abundance-harris
More b.s. from the same folks that thought reducing fraud and waste in the government would balance the budget. Would be nice if all these "everything would be great if there were no regulations" types had even a rudimentary understanding of the regulatory process or were willing to concede that other interest groups had an equal right to advance their agenda. But, to wrap this in the "Dems need to embrace .... in order to regain power" is bullshit.
Klein mid bro
He’s mid during my college years and he is mid now
I think some of the obsession might be due to the fact that they are, at the moment, in terms of broad popular appeal, the most influential "public intellectual" liberals? (Which says a lot about the differences between the modern left and right nowadays.)
69 articles about Matthew Yglesias are about 66 too many if you want to address his point of view.
It is not surprising that outsiders who do not understand the trust centers within democratic party politics are either confused or think they have caught people they already disagree with making bad arguments.
Newsflash: No one is against Abundance per se. FDR era Democrats used government to create massive abundance. Klein et al acknowledge this. Klein himself says he wants government to be able to take action. But the book does a bait and switch.
It lays out the following premise:
FDR era Dems used government for abundance. True.
Ralph Nader era Dems hobbled Government though litigation. True.
Now here comes the bait and switch:
3. Get rid of Ralph Naderism so the private sector can do supply side stuff. Wait, what?
The book correctly critiques Naderism but it does not bring back FDR in any obvious way. If you remove Naderism but don’t bring back FDR that is just plain old neoliberalism.
I am sure that by 2028, there will be a new synthesis whereby the left will accept a roll back of Naderism but the party will insert more FDR on top of Klein+Thompson’s feeble attempt at abundance.
It’s always odd when the party that made stealing legal starts talking about how we need to strictly enforce laws around building. It seems like the enforcement of laws only matters when not enforcing them would be beneficial.
The authors of the book are Ezra Klein and Derek Thompson, not the Democratic party
That is true I was generalizing unfairly. But I was referring to Kenny Stancil’s counter argument not Klein and Thompson’s initial point