Abundance Agenda mega-thread

[Nole Lou]

I've talked about it in other threads, and started a related thread that got a little traction, so I'm going to start one thread to talk about it. Maybe it will just be me posting things I find interesting LOL. Mega thread is tongue in cheek.

This is the most truly interesting (though far from the most sensational) thing going on in politics right now, the movement of a wing of the Democratic party to wrestle control and rebuild the party around a new paradigm. As a lifelong conservative with huge misgivings about where the Republican party is now, this is the most interested I've ever been in anything coming out of the Democratic party, probably in my lifetime.

There's different ways to define it or describe it, but Abundance Agenda seems to be the most common name that is sticking. Sometimes it's called Yimbyism. Essentially, it is a push for Democrats to become the party that gets things done, primarily through smart deregulation, but also through more competence, smart incentives, and changes in philosophy. It most frequently pivots around building more housing, and to a lesser extent infrastructure, but it really encompasses anything that symbolizes government being muscular, efficient, responsive and effective. Safe functional cities, affordability of all kinds of goods and services, and strong economic growth are all part of the agenda.

It is an alternative to, and in opposition to, the traditional Republican small government rhetoric in general, and DOGE in particular. I've been following this wing of the Democrats for a couple years, but it's really being supercharged now by Democrats looking for an agenda beyond/besides wokism/identity politics, combined with the damage the Trump administration is doing to government.

Anyway, this is pretty long, but it's a great introduction to this premise, by one of its leading proponents on the left.

 

[Nole Lou]

 

[seminole97]

The political/economic system of abundance is capitalism.

It's through consumer choice, and thereby the consumer allocation of resources, that you truly find out what people want more of, and as importantly, what they want less of.

Everything else boils down to the bureaucrats best guess of what people want, which lacks in comparison of outcomes to capitalism.

 

[Nole Lou]

The political/economic system of abundance is capitalism.

It's through consumer choice, and thereby the consumer allocation of resources, that you truly find out what people want more of, and as importantly, what they want less of.

Everything else boils down to the bureaucrats best guess of what people want, which lacks in comparison of outcomes to capitalism.

Yes, I definitely don't think any of the Yimby/abundance democrats consider themselves socialists. They may support the social safety net and public projects in a way that is different from some on the right, but they are decidedly pro-growth.

 

[BioHawk]

I've talked about it in other threads, and started a related thread that got a little traction, so I'm going to start one thread to talk about it. Maybe it will just be me posting things I find interesting LOL. Mega thread is tongue in cheek.

This is the most truly interesting (though far from the most sensational) thing going on in politics right now, the movement of a wing of the Democratic party to wrestle control and rebuild the party around a new paradigm. As a lifelong conservative with huge misgivings about where the Republican party is now, this is the most interested I've ever been in anything coming out of the Democratic party, probably in my lifetime.

There's different ways to define it or describe it, but Abundance Agenda seems to be the most common name that is sticking. Sometimes it's called Yimbyism. Essentially, it is a push for Democrats to become the party that gets things done, primarily through smart deregulation, but also through more competence, smart incentives, and changes in philosophy. It most frequently pivots around building more housing, and to a lesser extent infrastructure, but it really encompasses anything that symbolizes government being muscular, efficient, responsive and effective. Safe functional cities, affordability of all kinds of goods and services, and strong economic growth are all part of the agenda.

It is an alternative to, and in opposition to, the traditional Republican small government rhetoric in general, and DOGE in particular. I've been following this wing of the Democrats for a couple years, but it's really being supercharged now by Democrats looking for an agenda beyond/besides wokism/identity politics, combined with the damage the Trump administration is doing to government.

Anyway, this is pretty long, but it's a great introduction to this premise, by one of its leading proponents on the left.

View embedded media

It's always awesome when Democrats get blamed for every problem in government when just about every issue that comes up with a program or agency or department can be traced back to a Republican pushing something through with the sole purpose of screwing it up.

 

[goldmom]

View embedded media

I personally would chafe under those guidelines and regulations and I think many others would too, but if Californians choose to live with it, it’s their choice.

 

[seminole97]

It's always awesome when Democrats get blamed for every problem in government when just about every issue that comes up with a program or agency or department can be traced back to a Republican pushing something through with the sole purpose of screwing it up.

Apply that to CA's high speed rail.
How are Republicans to blame for the progress to date, and not the Democrats who have been in control for decades?

How does that progress (or lack thereof) contrast with the Bright Line efforts in Republican run Florida?

I remember when Florida was mocked for turning down the Obama admin's rail money due to the strings attached, and now we have a new rail line running between major cities while CA doesn't:

The Brightline project, which became Brightline Florida connecting Miami to Orlando, commenced construction in November 2014 with its initial service beginning in South Florida (between Miami, Fort Lauderdale, and West Palm Beach) in January 2018. The West Palm Beach to Orlando segment began revenue service in September 2023, completing the full route.

 

[BioHawk]

Apply that to CA's high speed rail.
How are Republicans to blame for the progress to date, and not the Democrats who have been in control for decades?

How does that progress (or lack thereof) contrast with the Bright Line efforts in Republican run Florida?

I remember when Florida was mocked for turning down the Obama admin's rail money due to the strings attached, and now we have a new rail line running between major cities while CA doesn't:

The Brightline project, which became Brightline Florida connecting Miami to Orlando, commenced construction in November 2014 with its initial service beginning in South Florida (between Miami, Fort Lauderdale, and West Palm Beach) in January 2018. The West Palm Beach to Orlando segment began revenue service in September 2023, completing the full route.

I don't know enough about either of those things to even begin to give you an intelligent response to them and I don't have the time to research it other than those are more local programs and the list of issues of doing things in California is very different than Florida. Florida doesn't have mountains to deal with, for one thing which makes building trains exponentially more expensive.

 

[seminole97]

I don't know enough about either of those things to even begin to give you an intelligent response to them and I don't have the time to research it other than those are more local programs and the list of issues of doing things in California is very different than Florida. Florida doesn't have mountains to deal with, for one thing which makes building trains exponentially more expensive.

You're missing OP's point.
It's not about the cost of building on particular terrain. It's about the 'cost' of getting permission in CA to build period. That permission comes from the Democrats who have been in control now for decades.

 

[BioHawk]

You're missing OP's point.
It's not about the cost of building on particular terrain. It's about the 'cost' of getting permission in CA to build period. That permission comes from the Democrats who have been in control now for decades.

Local issues. The federal government might be funding it, but they aren't doing the local work. If the Federal Government were responsible for that then it wouldn't be an issue. California is full of NIMBY's just like everywhere else is. I'm not talking about local programs, I'm talking about the big ones, like Medicare, Social Security.

 

[seminole97]

Local issues. The federal government might be funding it, but they aren't doing the local work. If the Federal Government were responsible for that then it wouldn't be an issue. California is full of NIMBY's just like everywhere else is. I'm not talking about local programs, I'm talking about the big ones, like Medicare, Social Security.

Ok, those have nothing to do with OPs post about how Democratic policies retard growth, and subsequently people flee them.

 

[BioHawk]

Ok, those have nothing to do with OPs post about how Democratic policies retard growth, and subsequently people flee them.

Maybe I should have been more specific. I was responding to the quote in the tweet posted about it being on Democrats shoulders to "offer the fruits of effective government". If it were just them, it would be far more effective. However it isn't because they have to bring along a bunch of people who's sole goal is to sabotage everything.

 

[seminole97]

"offer the fruits of effective government". If it were just them, it would be far more effective.

But your example on that (effective government) is the SS Ponzi which is already a broken promise in waiting.

Math itself disagrees with your assessment of 'effective'.

 

[TennNole17]

I will hijack this thread a bit to ask a question about something I only partially understand- Social Security.

This is an Oscar to Michael- explain it to me like I am 5 situation.

SS is "self funded" in that the tax is a specific payroll tax withheld and pooled for the program. You "should" get back what you put in. Assuming the money grows over time, there should be plenty of fund to go around, assuming everyone pays in their fair share, and get a proportional payout back (lower earners may get less than higher earners, but proportionally they get out what they put in).

What are the challenges SS faces in living up to the obligations? We are paying today with tomorrows money? Is someone borrowing or spending against the SS reserve?

 

[BioHawk]

But your example on that (effective government) is the SS Ponzi which is already a broken promise in waiting.

Math itself disagrees with your assessment of 'effective'.

 

[seminole97]

I will hijack this thread a bit to ask a question about something I only partially understand- Social Security.

This is an Oscar to Michael- explain it to me like I am 5 situation.

SS is "self funded" in that the tax is a specific payroll tax withheld and pooled for the program. You "should" get back what you put in. Assuming the money grows over time, there should be plenty of fund to go around, assuming everyone pays in their fair share, and get a proportional payout back (lower earners may get less than higher earners, but proportionally they get out what they put in).

What are the challenges SS faces in living up to the obligations? We are paying today with tomorrows money? Is someone borrowing or spending against the SS reserve?

Problem of any Ponzi, the contributions are not sufficiently invested to pay the promised returns.

 

[Nole Lou]

Maybe I should have been more specific. I was responding to the quote in the tweet posted about it being on Democrats shoulders to "offer the fruits of effective government". If it were just them, it would be far more effective. However it isn't because they have to bring along a bunch of people who's sole goal is to sabotage everything.

I'm specifically quoting only from Democrats here. This is not a place I'm using to bash Californians from the right.

Frankly, that's a reflexive partisan response. The key focuses of this wing of the Democratic party are focused on things specifically within Democratic and bureaucratic control.

Nobody is holding Democrats responsible for not building needle exchange zones in Alabama. This is about what governments under full democratic hegemony can be doing drastically better, and how that means they win.

 

[hawkeyetraveler]

Sign me up. The video in the OP is pretty damn close to how I see the world. We need some, much smaller, much more streamlined government that can actually get stuff done.

To do that, instead of working on sexy projects like high speed rail we have to work on streamlining regulation. We have to realize that not everyone’s concerns are going to be addressed - and that is ok. Instead the Dems seem to create these giant coalitions that makes actual governance super hard - look at how fine a line Harris had to walk last fall on Gaza, stuck between trying to secure Jewish support while trying not to lose Muslim support. In the end she had a wishy washy position and lost at least some support from both groups.

If you want to govern you have to start by looking at, and addressing, the obstacles to governance. Some of those are the coalitions where everyone has too much of a voice. Some of it is in the silly regulations. Some of it is in the institutional bureaucracies that have lost the narrative on what “good” looks like. And a LOT of it is in a primary system that awards people who are out of touch with everyday Americans. No one gives a shit about your pronouns if you can’t afford a home.

I say all that while acknowledging that I would far prefer a status quo dem right now than the shitshow playing out in DC at the moment.

 

[TennNole17]

Problem of any Ponzi, the contributions are not sufficiently invested to pay the promised returns.

Is it lack of incoming funds? Mismanaged funds?

 

[Obviously Oblivious]

So essentially common sense moderate policy. That's difficult to argue against and why would I? I support this type of policy stance.

 

[jneffer]

Apply that to CA's high speed rail.
How are Republicans to blame for the progress to date, and not the Democrats who have been in control for decades?

How does that progress (or lack thereof) contrast with the Bright Line efforts in Republican run Florida?

I remember when Florida was mocked for turning down the Obama admin's rail money due to the strings attached, and now we have a new rail line running between major cities while CA doesn't:

The Brightline project, which became Brightline Florida connecting Miami to Orlando, commenced construction in November 2014 with its initial service beginning in South Florida (between Miami, Fort Lauderdale, and West Palm Beach) in January 2018. The West Palm Beach to Orlando segment began revenue service in September 2023, completing the full route.

bright line was privately funded and is privately owned

that's the main reason for the contrast in speed of progress

yes...if you want infrastructure projects to move more efficiently, find someone to pony up billions of private dollars to fund them

 

[Obviously Oblivious]

Is it lack of incoming funds? Mismanaged funds?

My understanding is that the SS Trust has essentially allowed the Treasury to borrow ~$1.7 T to fund other government programs over the years instead of issuing more public debt for those same purposes. The Treasury still has that debt obligation to the SS Trust.

 

[TennNole17]

My understanding is that the SS Trust has essentially allowed the Treasury to borrow ~$1.7 T to fund other government programs over the years instead of issuing more public debt for those same purposes. The Treasury still has that debt obligation to the SS Trust.

Who/when did this happen, or just over time? Seems....irresponsible.

So when everyone is screaming about "cuts" to SS- what does that entail? Lowering what upcoming retirees will get, and maybe they get it later?

Putting a bottleneck on outgoing funds to "stop the bleeding" of the whole thing running out of money?

 

[hawkeyez]

I will hijack this thread a bit to ask a question about something I only partially understand- Social Security.

This is an Oscar to Michael- explain it to me like I am 5 situation.

SS is "self funded" in that the tax is a specific payroll tax withheld and pooled for the program. You "should" get back what you put in. Assuming the money grows over time, there should be plenty of fund to go around, assuming everyone pays in their fair share, and get a proportional payout back (lower earners may get less than higher earners, but proportionally they get out what they put in).

What are the challenges SS faces in living up to the obligations? We are paying today with tomorrows money? Is someone borrowing or spending against the SS reserve?

Demographics, specifically baby boomers. More people collecting benefits than new money coming in. This problem should alleviate itself once the boomers start dying off, but congress needs to figure out how to get from here to there without running out of money. This has been a known issue for decades, but Washington has kicked the can instead of doing anything to fix it.

 

[BelemNole]

Tree Law is some of the oldest in the country. It's there because trees are valuable and cannot be easily replaced once damages/removed. You go out and chop down a tree on city land/easement in any state and it will be a process.
This is a poor example of overzealous regulations.

 

[Colonoscopy]

The political/economic system of abundance is capitalism.

In it's instantiation capitalism is effectively a game with rules.

Democrats should focus on amending the rules to the game of capitalism.

A capitalism that better advantages the little guy and isn't as concerned about the big guys. Make the little guys more competitive. Make small businesses more competitive.

Also amend the rules to be more productive where needed. (removing some regulations and road-blocks)

 

[Nole Lou]

Sign me up. The video in the OP is pretty damn close to how I see the world. We need some, much smaller, much more streamlined government that can actually get stuff done.

To do that, instead of working on sexy projects like high speed rail we have to work on streamlining regulation. We have to realize that not everyone’s concerns are going to be addressed - and that is ok. Instead the Dems seem to create these giant coalitions that makes actual governance super hard - look at how fine a line Harris had to walk last fall on Gaza, stuck between trying to secure Jewish support while trying not to lose Muslim support. In the end she had a wishy washy position and lost at least some support from both groups.

If you want to govern you have to start by looking at, and addressing, the obstacles to governance. Some of those are the coalitions where everyone has too much of a voice. Some of it is in the silly regulations. Some of it is in the institutional bureaucracies that have lost the narrative on what “good” looks like. And a LOT of it is in a primary system that awards people who are out of touch with everyday Americans. No one gives a shit about your pronouns if you can’t afford a home.

I say all that while acknowledging that I would far prefer a status quo dem right now than the shitshow playing out in DC at the moment.

Yep, you get it.

 

[seminole97]

Is it lack of incoming funds? Mismanaged funds?

From the beginning taxes (contributions) exceeded the outlays (benefits) and the difference was 'invested' in Treasury debt.
But the contributions weren't enough to actually meet the promised benefits.
So they've raised the tax over and over (say that about twenty more times) to the point that someone born after 1975 can already expect to get back less than each dollar they feed into the system.
When the system was initiated life expectancy was just under the age where benefits began to be paid out. So out of the gate, they expected almost half of contributors wouldn't live to become beneficiaries. Since there was no property right to the money you put in, that money just goes to someone else.

We're at the point demographically where outlays exceed revenue. So the Treasury IOUs are redeemed, and the outlays continue while the trust fund withers.
In the 2033-4 time frame the trust fund is predicted to be exhausted. By law SS benefits are only paid from SS payroll taxes, so the ~20% shortfall in payments means benefit reduction and or another tax increase to keep it going.

People over 65 are already the wealthiest cohort. I think the best move (short of ditching the Ponzi for a genuine savings regime) would be to means test for those making over the median income. If that's you, congrats on making wise decisions in life, we'll save the welfare for the people who need it.

 

[Nole Lou]

Great read here...

Why America Struggles to Build

How economic policy can remove the real barriers to progress.

www.foreignaffairs.com

States and municipalities that impede reasonable housing construction with restrictive land-use and zoning regulations should lose access to federal resources. This should include highway and transportation funding as well as their share of the $15 billion in tax credits that the federal government provides each year to encourage construction of low-income housing. The government should also expand the scopes of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored companies that together guarantee most U.S. mortgages, so that they encourage more housing construction in places that get zoning right.

Creating a government that can build also requires taking on the political processes that uphold the status quo. The United States has what could be called an infrastructure-industrial complex, wherein members of Congress from both parties fight vigorously to resist competition in building to preserve funding for their constituents and protect special interests. In practice, this results in the government funding infrastructure projects by using predetermined formulas to award grants directly to states, which then often select projects through opaque processes and offer costly contracts to a shrinking number of construction firms. This system keeps costs high and construction timelines long. Such a dynamic was on display during the creation of the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, which I helped negotiate. Although the law succeeded in prioritizing projects with greater returns on investment—such as the first competitive programs for rebuilding economically significant bridges—every effort to introduce cost-effective considerations was vigorously fought by special interests, including industry lobbyists and standards organizations.

 

[Nole Lou]

 

[Nole Lou]

 

[hawkeyetraveler]

Great read here...

Why America Struggles to Build

How economic policy can remove the real barriers to progress.

www.foreignaffairs.com

States and municipalities that impede reasonable housing construction with restrictive land-use and zoning regulations should lose access to federal resources. This should include highway and transportation funding as well as their share of the $15 billion in tax credits that the federal government provides each year to encourage construction of low-income housing. The government should also expand the scopes of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored companies that together guarantee most U.S. mortgages, so that they encourage more housing construction in places that get zoning right.

Creating a government that can build also requires taking on the political processes that uphold the status quo. The United States has what could be called an infrastructure-industrial complex, wherein members of Congress from both parties fight vigorously to resist competition in building to preserve funding for their constituents and protect special interests. In practice, this results in the government funding infrastructure projects by using predetermined formulas to award grants directly to states, which then often select projects through opaque processes and offer costly contracts to a shrinking number of construction firms. This system keeps costs high and construction timelines long. Such a dynamic was on display during the creation of the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, which I helped negotiate. Although the law succeeded in prioritizing projects with greater returns on investment—such as the first competitive programs for rebuilding economically significant bridges—every effort to introduce cost-effective considerations was vigorously fought by special interests, including industry lobbyists and standards organizations.

I faced this exact issue. I ran a company that had no federal government business. But our products were commercially competitive with others that sold the same type of solution into the government. So we tried like mad to win a major contract (hundreds of millions in value) and I know for a fact our price was lower than the competition. We also won our fair share commercially when the products were measured on functionality/performance.

When we had the debrief with the federal procurement officer after losing I was told to my face that they ended up putting a higher score on the tenure of the company’s relationship with the government. Since we were new to the game we were SOL. Basically they rigged the game so the higher cost player they had known for years won. The challenge/appeal process available at that point is convoluted to say the least and went nowhere.

It’s the “no one ever got fired for choosing IBM” strategy of procurement. Go the safe dependable, but more costly route vs. doing something better, cheaper and new. And the worst part - we were an American company and they selected a foreign company for the bid.

 

[jneffer]

Great read here...

Why America Struggles to Build

How economic policy can remove the real barriers to progress.

www.foreignaffairs.com

States and municipalities that impede reasonable housing construction with restrictive land-use and zoning regulations should lose access to federal resources. This should include highway and transportation funding as well as their share of the $15 billion in tax credits that the federal government provides each year to encourage construction of low-income housing. The government should also expand the scopes of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored companies that together guarantee most U.S. mortgages, so that they encourage more housing construction in places that get zoning right.

Creating a government that can build also requires taking on the political processes that uphold the status quo. The United States has what could be called an infrastructure-industrial complex, wherein members of Congress from both parties fight vigorously to resist competition in building to preserve funding for their constituents and protect special interests. In practice, this results in the government funding infrastructure projects by using predetermined formulas to award grants directly to states, which then often select projects through opaque processes and offer costly contracts to a shrinking number of construction firms. This system keeps costs high and construction timelines long. Such a dynamic was on display during the creation of the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, which I helped negotiate. Although the law succeeded in prioritizing projects with greater returns on investment—such as the first competitive programs for rebuilding economically significant bridges—every effort to introduce cost-effective considerations was vigorously fought by special interests, including industry lobbyists and standards organizations.

i have plenty of experience with the first part (land use/zoning regulations and federal highway/transportation funding)

for one - it would be really hard to tie the 2 together. in a lot of states, local municipalities control land use decisions and regional commissions/county governments (usually called MPOs) "control" (or are supposed to control) infrastructure decisions. those infrastructure decisions are much more commonly made, for the most part, by the state DOTs.

it would be incredibly difficult to get DOTs to buy into that kind of effort (unreal levels of organizational inertia), and then do all the coordination required with the (sometimes) hundreds of individual municipalities required

on top of that...any attempts to increase densities or build multi-family housing are almost universally fought against by neighbors. municipal officials almost always give in because they think they're serving the community (and sometimes, they might be) and no one ever gets removed from office or loses an election because of housing shortages

 

[Nole Lou]

i have plenty of experience with the first part (land use/zoning regulations and federal highway/transportation funding)

for one - it would be really hard to tie the 2 together. in a lot of states, local municipalities control land use decisions and regional commissions/county governments (usually called MPOs) "control" (or are supposed to control) infrastructure decisions. those infrastructure decisions are much more commonly made, for the most part, by the state DOTs.

it would be incredibly difficult to get DOTs to buy into that kind of effort (unreal levels of organizational inertia), and then do all the coordination required with the (sometimes) hundreds of individual municipalities required

on top of that...any attempts to increase densities or build multi-family housing are almost universally fought against by neighbors. municipal officials almost always give in because they think they're serving the community (and sometimes, they might be) and no one ever gets removed from office or loses an election because of housing shortages

I don't doubt any of that. That doesn't mean it doesn't have to change. Other countries manage to build things.

Eventually we have to demand better as a country.

 

[Nole Lou]

I'm normally super resistant to this kind of talk, but I'm more open minded to it now. I haven't read the book, but these ideas definitely seem worth considering. In a proper federalist system, we would see different cities experimenting with this, and could judge the results.

 

[jneffer]

I'm normally super resistant to this kind of talk, but I'm more open minded to it now. I haven't read the book, but these ideas definitely seem worth considering. In a proper federalist system, we would see different cities experimenting with this, and could judge the results.

View embedded media

another interesting book on this general topic "the high cost of free parking" by donald shoup

 

[ZachJump]

the high cost of free parking

I will stick with living out in the middle of the desert, where if I want to have 50 friends over to my house, that each drive their own car, no problem finding parking.

 

[wausauhawk]

Haven't listened to this episode, but I do sometimes listen to this pod. The host co-authored Aubundance w Ezra Klein

 

[IIowaFarmBoy]

I've talked about it in other threads, and started a related thread that got a little traction, so I'm going to start one thread to talk about it. Maybe it will just be me posting things I find interesting LOL. Mega thread is tongue in cheek.

This is the most truly interesting (though far from the most sensational) thing going on in politics right now, the movement of a wing of the Democratic party to wrestle control and rebuild the party around a new paradigm. As a lifelong conservative with huge misgivings about where the Republican party is now, this is the most interested I've ever been in anything coming out of the Democratic party, probably in my lifetime.

There's different ways to define it or describe it, but Abundance Agenda seems to be the most common name that is sticking. Sometimes it's called Yimbyism. Essentially, it is a push for Democrats to become the party that gets things done, primarily through smart deregulation, but also through more competence, smart incentives, and changes in philosophy. It most frequently pivots around building more housing, and to a lesser extent infrastructure, but it really encompasses anything that symbolizes government being muscular, efficient, responsive and effective. Safe functional cities, affordability of all kinds of goods and services, and strong economic growth are all part of the agenda.

It is an alternative to, and in opposition to, the traditional Republican small government rhetoric in general, and DOGE in particular. I've been following this wing of the Democrats for a couple years, but it's really being supercharged now by Democrats looking for an agenda beyond/besides wokism/identity politics, combined with the damage the Trump administration is doing to government.

Anyway, this is pretty long, but it's a great introduction to this premise, by one of its leading proponents on the left.

View embedded media

From Republican to this?

Loading…

thehill.com

 

[jneffer]

I will stick with living out in the middle of the desert, where if I want to have 50 friends over to my house, that each drive their own car, no problem finding parking.

ok