Abundance Movement is a Neoliberal Rebrand

[Moral]

I don’t think these things are in as much conflict as you lay out. I think they may even be complementary in some ways and part of this is just sequencing in my opinion. Yes we should be fighting what Musk and crew are doing. No doubt in my mind they are destroying essential government services.

At the same time, we should be open to better ways of doing things going forward. The examples put forward (CA high speed rail, urban housing, rural broadband, etc) are absolutely examples of worthwhile projects that have been stymied for a myriad of process/regulatory/special interest reasons. Ignoring the fact that these types of projects are unproductive disasters is overlooking one of the key reasons that everyday people voted in Trump and crew.

Failure to design an efficient process for getting things done means that liberals lose the right to do things to a team of psychopaths. Yes we should work to block the psychopaths, but maybe we should also clean up some of the root causes that helped put them in power in the first place - and that requires a focus on how things get done.

I'm not personally opposed building public housing, or working around red tape that has impeded high speed rail. However, the cost of housing is high because myriad of reasons related to corporate power and deregulation. I feel like it is completely tone deaf in 2025.

I also can't unsee the marketing angle on it. It delivers the pain points of we can't get the trains running let alone running on time and housing is too expensive/the rent is too damn high. The villain in the story is regulations and red tape. The solution is to get rid of the red tape, build housing in city centers, and consolidate population in city centers as well as tech for advancement and abundance. It also doesn't feel completely organic, and with media and whatnot being fairly kind to it my trust in it drops even more.

This will have appeal to establishment left and right media and will be presented in a couple of ways. To the right it is deregulation from red tape, especially that California red tape and how the government has hampered growth. On the left it will be building public housing and the terrible housing costs that are leaving many on the outside looking in and the lack of results from establishment neoliberal politicians.

To me it looks a lot like neo-feudalism which is one of the goals of Project 2025.

Interestingly enough it drives a couple of political wedges between the abundance movement and both conservatives and progressives. I'm talking small town anti-city type conservatives.

 

[ISUBryce]

Also posted in the Left Wing Media Hosts thread

What Is The 'Abundance' Agenda?​

View embedded media

These guys' arguments are all in the context of what is bad for electability. Not what is good for the country.

 

[Nole Lou]

I'm not personally opposed building public housing, or working around red tape that has impeded high speed rail. However, the cost of housing is high because myriad of reasons related to corporate power and deregulation. I feel like it is completely tone deaf in 2025.

I also can't unsee the marketing angle on it. It delivers the pain points of we can't get the trains running let alone running on time and housing is too expensive/the rent is too damn high. The villain in the story is regulations and red tape. The solution is to get rid of the red tape, build housing in city centers, and consolidate population in city centers as well as tech for advancement and abundance. It also doesn't feel completely organic, and with media and whatnot being fairly kind to it my trust in it drops even more.

This will have appeal to establishment left and right media and will be presented in a couple of ways. To the right it is deregulation from red tape, especially that California red tape and how the government has hampered growth. On the left it will be building public housing and the terrible housing costs that are leaving many on the outside looking in and the lack of results from establishment neoliberal politicians.

To me it looks a lot like neo-feudalism which is one of the goals of Project 2025.

Interestingly enough it drives a couple of political wedges between the abundance movement and both conservatives and progressives. I'm talking small town anti-city type conservatives.

Should it take 50% more years, and 75% of the cost, to put anti-suicide nets on the Golden Gate Bridge, as it did to build the Golden Gate Bridge 90 years ago?

Simple question, is that a good thing, and an example of healthy state capacity?

If yes, there's no reason to have this discussion, I think the overwhelming majority of people would find that absurd on its face.

I still have no idea how you insist proponents of New Deal government action and a muscular powerful state are libertarians. I guess because libertarians would like some aspects of it? And...so what? Oh no some bad people might like some parts of something, so we can't have good things? It's not like libertarians would like the significant taxes, expansive government action, government executing eminent domain on private property, and overruling NIMBYs control over their own neighborhoods that abundance folks advocate.

It's really not all that aligned with conservatives at all, who currently want to weaken and shrink government. In an ideal world, the Dems' abundance agenda is so appealing and powerful with the voters that Republicans have to shift from merely trying to destroy state capacity and actually argue that they have a BETTER way toward abundance for all Americans. We'd be way better off if our political discourse was Dems and Republicans both committed to abundance and government actually working for people, and fighting over the exact percentages of public vs private responsibility.

Currently neither party, outside the Abundance movement, is offering a compelling version of the state effectively delivering for citizens. That's pathetic that we have the most expensive government in the history of the universe, and nobody expects it to deliver anything good.

 

[Jerome Silberman]

This is incredibly uncompelling. You can see them casting about for actual objections, but even those they raise would be easily shot down by abundance advocates. And good luck selling any of the anti-abundance takes to the general public.

The very most generous anti-abundance take you can come up with is "Well, I have other priorities." I think there aren't really any other priorities more important right now, but at least that's an argument that could be in good faith.

Everything else is ridiculous, or so outside the mainstream.

It's hilarious to see anti-abundance folks painting abundance dems as libertarians and DOGE adjacent, when the abundance folks specifically hold up FDR and the New Deal as an example of the kind of things government is capable of. It's so disingenuous.

And again, they never actually defend the state of affairs.

I think it's kind of hilarious that you've already carved out camps based on ideas in a book that was released something like 2 weeks ago.

 

[Nole Lou]

I think it's kind of hilarious that you've already carved out camps based on ideas in a book that was released something like 2 weeks ago.

The ideas behind it have been circling a lot longer than that, I've been following it for some time.

 

[Moral]

Should it take 50% more years, and 75% of the cost, to put anti-suicide nets on the Golden Gate Bridge, as it did to build the Golden Gate Bridge 90 years ago?

Simple question, is that a good thing, and an example of healthy state capacity?

If yes, there's no reason to have this discussion, I think the overwhelming majority of people would find that absurd on its face.

I still have no idea how you insist proponents of New Deal government action and a muscular powerful state are libertarians. I guess because libertarians would like some aspects of it? And...so what? Oh no some bad people might like some parts of something, so we can't have good things? It's not like libertarians would like the significant taxes, expansive government action, government executing eminent domain on private property, and overruling NIMBYs control over their own neighborhoods that abundance folks advocate.

It's really not all that aligned with conservatives at all, who currently want to weaken and shrink government. In an ideal world, the Dems' abundance agenda is so appealing and powerful with the voters that Republicans have to shift from merely trying to destroy state capacity and actually argue that they have a BETTER way toward abundance for all Americans. We'd be way better off if our political discourse was Dems and Republicans both committed to abundance and government actually working for people, and fighting over the exact percentages of public vs private responsibility.

Currently neither party, outside the Abundance movement, is offering a compelling version of the state effectively delivering for citizens. That's pathetic that we have the most expensive government in the history of the universe, and nobody expects it to deliver anything good.

New Deal style? Some stuff has to happen before the New Deal era kicked off which included regulations around around ways that robber barons moved money to themselves, monopoly busting and anti-trust laws after a some depressions and other scares. Or are you talking about WPA initiatives? Because sign me up for WPA in the modern day.

It doesn't sound like WPA worker type stuff as much as deregulation and de-zoning so private industry can come in and save the day. Which is pretty libertarian in mindset.

As far as the libertarian elements Derek Thompson isn't even afraid to say he's a bit of a libertarian. Derek and Ezra are basically "supply-side progressives" or neoliberals as I have mentioned plenty of times in this thread as being libertarian lite. Plus you have literal libertarian money behind it, some of it also behind MAGA simultaneously.

To make matters worse Derek Thompson in that interview by that woman who wasn't up to standards took a question on Medicare for all but related it back to building in city centers, the concentration of technology, and that having better health outcomes because of industry. If that isn't libertarian dogma then I don't know what is. You have even mentioned voting on the directions of libertarians sometimes in the past, yet, you are one of the biggest advocates on here for this "liberal" abundance movement. It feels a little disengenious that you are making this push while trying to to invoice New Deal era stuff. Clearly you and your conservative/libertarian self must see something you really like in the Abundance Movement.

Clearly, it's not for me, I can see it for a neoliberal trojan horse a mile away. You can keep talking about abundance, and their theory that concentrations of people and power will be a boon for American culture if you want. The movement seems a bit fixated on things that are a problem but they seem adverse to speaking on a lot of what is happening today or addressing.

If you want to address the price of housing maybe lead with the Blackrock, AirBnB, and Zillow behaviors and regulations to undo that. That will have a great effect nationally instead of a focus on metropolises and a re-imagining of society on the whole.

 

[Nole Lou]

New Deal style? Some stuff has to happen before the New Deal era kicked off which included regulations around around ways that robber barons moved money to themselves, monopoly busting and anti-trust laws after a some depressions and other scares. Or are you talking about WPA initiatives? Because sign me up for WPA in the modern day.

It doesn't sound like WPA worker type stuff as much as deregulation and de-zoning so private industry can come in and save the day. Which is pretty libertarian in mindset.

As far as the libertarian elements Derek Thompson isn't even afraid to say he's a bit of a libertarian. Derek and Ezra are basically "supply-side progressives" or neoliberals as I have mentioned plenty of times in this thread as being libertarian lite. Plus you have literal libertarian money behind it, some of it also behind MAGA simultaneously.

To make matters worse Derek Thompson in that interview by that woman who wasn't up to standards took a question on Medicare for all but related it back to building in city centers, the concentration of technology, and that having better health outcomes because of industry. If that isn't libertarian dogma then I don't know what is. You have even mentioned voting on the directions of libertarians sometimes in the past, yet, you are one of the biggest advocates on here for this "liberal" abundance movement. It feels a little disengenious that you are making this push while trying to to invoice New Deal era stuff. Clearly you and your conservative/libertarian self must see something you really like in the Abundance Movement.

Clearly, it's not for me, I can see it for a neoliberal trojan horse a mile away. You can keep talking about abundance, and their theory that concentrations of people and power will be a boon for American culture if you want. The movement seems a bit fixated on things that are a problem but they seem adverse to speaking on a lot of what is happening today or addressing.

If you want to address the price of housing maybe lead with the Blackrock, AirBnB, and Zillow behaviors and regulations to undo that. That will have a great effect nationally instead of a focus on metropolises and a re-imagining of society on the whole.

Somehow, I'm afraid you missed this question?

Should it take 50% more years, and 75% of the cost, to put anti-suicide nets on the Golden Gate Bridge, as it did to build the Golden Gate Bridge 90 years ago?

Simple question, is that a good thing, and an example of healthy state capacity?

Answer please? Is Zillow responsible for that too?

Anti-abundance folks can never engage with the central premise...they always have to find a boogeyman to discredit it to try to keep their anarcho-socialist dreams from circling the drain.

 

[pjhawk]

1980 Democratic Party Platform | The American Presidency Project

www.presidency.ucsb.edu

Is there a point here? Do you think Republicans in 1925 were citing the 1880 Democratic platform as something relevant to contemporary politics?

 

[pjhawk]

The point is how far left the party has swung in 50 years.

Wut? How has the party swung far left since 1980? Just bizarre.

 

[Moral]

Somehow, I'm afraid you missed this question?

Should it take 50% more years, and 75% of the cost, to put anti-suicide nets on the Golden Gate Bridge, as it did to build the Golden Gate Bridge 90 years ago?

Simple question, is that a good thing, and an example of healthy state capacity?

Answer please? Is Zillow responsible for that too?

Anti-abundance folks can never engage with the central premise...they always have to find a boogeyman to discredit it to try to keep their anarcho-socialist dreams from circling the drain.

I ignored it. Flat out. It wasn't a good faith question. If you adjust costs for inflation the bridge cost three times the amount to construct than the suicide nets to deploy. The number of people that died placing the nets was much lower. It's also comparing the 1930s to 2024. Stuff has changed over time. If you rewind another 40 years from the building of the bridges you will see how many train trails the US were able to build. You will also find a ton of death, union busting, company town situation and exploitation as well. At least regulations were low so we could get that done ignoring the cost to workers.

You are using cultish language at this point. Abundance people vs anti abundance people. Abundance is the way.

Zillow etc as I previously mentioned actually did work up house prices regardless of suicide nets on a bridge.

I'm also not anarcho-socialist. Why are you getting so worked up that I dislike you neoliberal trojan horse that is being pushed by conservatives onto liberals?

 

[Bierhalter]

I think the cultural issues are set to take a back seat; "wokeism" or whatever you want to call it was waning before Trump took office.

If Trump 24 ends in a thud (where economic populism is concerned) and the democrats finally hit the right admixture where economic/working class issues are concerned -- while finally figuring out how to leave unpopular/interesting social issues on the sidelines -- then I think the stage is set.

I truly hope these predictions come true.

 

[seminole97]

It's also comparing the 1930s to 2024. Stuff has changed over time. If you rewind another 40 years from the building of the bridges you will see how many train trails the US were able to build.

But man, we sure can blow shit up on the side of the world real good.
The best.

 

[Jerome Silberman]

But man, we sure can blow shit up on the side of the world real good.
The best.

I guess that's a point for a strong central government and dubious property rights.

Weird flex.

 

[seminole97]

I guess that's a point for a strong central government and dubious property rights.

Weird flex.

The U.S. has the 5th amendment, I don’t of China’s equivalent, so property rights are hardly the excuse for lack of progress.
You could make the argument that the requirement to compensate for eminent domain is a cost to the project, but what portion of the 10s of billions spent so far has actually been on land acquisition?
Ground breaking was over a decade ago.

 

[Jerome Silberman]

The U.S. has the 5th amendment, I don’t of China’s equivalent, so property rights are hardly the excuse for lack of progress.
You could make the argument that the requirement to compensate for eminent domain is a cost to the project, but what portion of the 10s of billions spent so far has actually been on land acquisition?
Ground breaking was over a decade ago.

Or you could just be forthright in your opinion instead of invoking an entirely different political and economic system as a benchmark.

 

[binsfeldcyhawk2]

Soooo…a conservative.

Or maybe someone with common sense and wants to utilize things have been proven to work.

 

[ISUBryce]

I ignored it. Flat out. It wasn't a good faith question. If you adjust costs for inflation the bridge cost three times the amount to construct than the suicide nets to deploy. The number of people that died placing the nets was much lower. It's also comparing the 1930s to 2024. Stuff has changed over time. If you rewind another 40 years from the building of the bridges you will see how many train trails the US were able to build. You will also find a ton of death, union busting, company town situation and exploitation as well. At least regulations were low so we could get that done ignoring the cost to workers.

You are using cultish language at this point. Abundance people vs anti abundance people. Abundance is the way.

Zillow etc as I previously mentioned actually did work up house prices regardless of suicide nets on a bridge.

I'm also not anarcho-socialist. Why are you getting so worked up that I dislike you neoliberal trojan horse that is being pushed by conservatives onto liberals?

Leave the cost out. Is it a good thing that stuff takes forever to get done, or it never gets done?

Have you read the book?

 

[Moral]

Leave the cost out. Is it a good thing that stuff takes forever to get done, or it never gets done?

Have you read the book?

Sometimes, and maybe. I guess it depends on what is being built or the reasons to stop it. Are you asking me to virtue signal for projects finished in a timely matter? Or were you hoping I would say that is bad and tell me about the wondrous ideas in the abundance movement?

I have listened to them speak on it. I get the concepts, it's not a book I'll need to add to my read list. After seeing the rumblings spring up about it on reddit, Ezra's podcast, some other people making videos on it, reading some articles on it, seeing it pop up on HBOT and whatnot I believe I can speak on it as it is a contemporary idea that seems to be gaining some traction.

I have however read a lot of books on the subject of neoliberals and similar.

 

[ISUBryce]

Sometimes, and maybe. I guess it depends on what is being built or the reasons to stop it. Are you asking me to virtue signal for projects finished in a timely matter? Or were you hoping I would say that is bad and tell me about the wondrous ideas in the abundance movement?

I have listened to them speak on it. I get the concepts, it's not a book I'll need to add to my read list. After seeing the rumblings spring up about it on reddit, Ezra's podcast, some other people making videos on it, reading some articles on it, seeing it pop up on HBOT and whatnot I believe I can speak on it as it is a contemporary idea that seems to be gaining some traction.

I have however read a lot of books on the subject of neoliberals and similar.

I just think that we spend more than other western countries on a lot of things simply because we choose to make it hard to build. I don’t see why this is even controversial.

 

[Moral]

I just think that we spend more than other western countries on a lot of things simply because we choose to make it hard to build. I don’t see why this is even controversial.

I don't disagree, and we will have some catching up to do at this trajectory. For me it just misses a lot of what the issues of the day, and that's me ignoring the self-coup underway right now. At the end of the day I end up voting with the Ezra Klein types over Republicans and Libertarians. If the Abundance Movement ends up being what the voter base went with I would side with it to repudiate maga.

 

[ISUBryce]

I don't disagree, and we will have some catching up to do at this trajectory. For me it just misses a lot of what the issues of the day, and that's me ignoring the self-coup underway right now. At the end of the day I end up voting with the Ezra Klein types over Republicans and Libertarians. If the Abundance Movement ends up being what the voter base went with I would side with it to repudiate maga.

Who is ignoring it?

For the record I’m with the abundance thing simply because a lot of that can be changed at the local level where actual people can have influence.

I don’t know how I resist the oligarchs.