I like your willingness to point out what I have felt after reading the book, liking it but wondering how does this happen? No political types picking it up. Too much a view from 50,000 feet. Where is the consensus about all this?
oh, "abundance" has been picked up by political people like Oren Cass or Noah Smith. Oren Cass is a "lefty" representative of the Nat Con coalition currently in power. Noah Smith is a pro-business Democrat, he has a substack here. However, both immediately recognized that the naturally occurring Democrats won't be in favor of such a program. So the only ones picking up the vibes on such an agenda are Nat Cons.
I read Abundance last week. I largely agree with them, but a Democrat running for president would have to combine their ideas with others aimed more at conservatives: good roads, cheap oil and gas, maybe more service at rural airports.
I doubt Mamdani will have much success with his plans if he wins. It’s fine to try and inspire people, but aiming too high risks a lot of disillusionment and cynicism, which politics already has too much of.
And whatever economics Democrats take up, immigration is still an albatross for them.
"What is a good life, exactly? Does it go further than cheaper housing and more new tech? And what are the tradeoffs that will have to be made to get there? Who do we prioritize? Who will you need to offend?"
These are pretty big picture questions, Christine. Are you saying that the book is so vague that you couldn't be more specific in your own criticism . . . about how the book isn't specific enough for your liking?
The book is pretty explicit that there *will be* tradeoffs. If you've been anywhere near left-of-center discourse in the last 10 years you might have noticed that its participants rarely ever acknowledge that, unless they are joking (or not) about how the tradeoff is that the rich get eaten.
I'll put this on my 'to read' list, which grows longer by the day :) I think my big issue with abundance politics in general is that it assumes economics is the core problem of politics. In some ways, economics is a big problem, but it strikes me that even if we could deliver 'abundance', people would remain unhappy. Tech and money can only get us so much. After-all, despite all of the UK's economic woes and with the US substantially richer than us, it feels as if the US suffers from a much deeper schism in its political, social, and cultural fault lines than we we do.
"Hard to argue with that! Which suggests that it’s not saying much at all."
I liked that line.
I do think the greater issues are ones of deep meaning and disagreement about the good life.
On the other hand, I appreciate what they're trying to do here, which is something I try to bring up in conservative v liberal disputes... e.g. find some sort of common ground/agreement and confront silly strawmen that people are using so they don't have to compromise.
To be fair, I agree! In a more generous mood, I can say that this book does seem to be a good faith effort to point in a new direction, and that in and of itself is useful. I just wanted more, especially because it markets itself so ambitiously.
Since when is the very idea of abundance specifically a democrat, leftist idea? That's not abundance, that's absurd.
It's the oldest political trick in the book: Proclaim that "our side" is for (enter you favorite cause here), and infer that if you are for it, the other side must be against it. Therefore, if liberals are for quality healthcare for all, conservative must be against it. If liberals are for equality, conservatives must be against it. If liberals are alarmed at growing income inequality, conservatives must be for it. If you are for the idea of DEI, the other side must be Nazis.
Today's politics does not center around solving problems, it centers around ego trips. Politicians are good at ego tripos, but they historically suck at solving problems. So, who can solve problems? The private sector. It is the private sector in the USA that has made the USA the place that so many people want to come to. Yes, even when the federal government pours money it doesn't have into providing for illegal aliens, it is the private sector that has actually produced the housing and the food for those illegal aliens, as it does for all of us.
There is an old saying, when you are hammer, every problem looks like a nail. But what if you don't have a hammer? What if you have no tools at all? In that case, some people give speeches, demonstrate in the street, and elect morons that satisfy egos, but solve nothing. And they read books called "Abundance."
Even if so, anyone on an ego trip needs to recognize it's an ego trip. When it becomes all about them, and not about measured results, you end up with NYC. I have little doubt that Mandani and his supporters have good intentions to go along with their out of control egos. But the don't even realize that they answer to their egos before they answer to reality.
Good intentions are not enough. But also, if you start with the right presumptions, you need ego to move along. If you start with wrong presumptions you easily end up making a mess. So one should be careful about saying (and thinking) that the ego is to blame, when in fact, what is wrong with the other people are their presumptions.
I like your willingness to point out what I have felt after reading the book, liking it but wondering how does this happen? No political types picking it up. Too much a view from 50,000 feet. Where is the consensus about all this?
Mandami’s politics work, his policies won’t
oh, "abundance" has been picked up by political people like Oren Cass or Noah Smith. Oren Cass is a "lefty" representative of the Nat Con coalition currently in power. Noah Smith is a pro-business Democrat, he has a substack here. However, both immediately recognized that the naturally occurring Democrats won't be in favor of such a program. So the only ones picking up the vibes on such an agenda are Nat Cons.
I read Abundance last week. I largely agree with them, but a Democrat running for president would have to combine their ideas with others aimed more at conservatives: good roads, cheap oil and gas, maybe more service at rural airports.
I doubt Mamdani will have much success with his plans if he wins. It’s fine to try and inspire people, but aiming too high risks a lot of disillusionment and cynicism, which politics already has too much of.
And whatever economics Democrats take up, immigration is still an albatross for them.
"What is a good life, exactly? Does it go further than cheaper housing and more new tech? And what are the tradeoffs that will have to be made to get there? Who do we prioritize? Who will you need to offend?"
These are pretty big picture questions, Christine. Are you saying that the book is so vague that you couldn't be more specific in your own criticism . . . about how the book isn't specific enough for your liking?
The book is pretty explicit that there *will be* tradeoffs. If you've been anywhere near left-of-center discourse in the last 10 years you might have noticed that its participants rarely ever acknowledge that, unless they are joking (or not) about how the tradeoff is that the rich get eaten.
I'll put this on my 'to read' list, which grows longer by the day :) I think my big issue with abundance politics in general is that it assumes economics is the core problem of politics. In some ways, economics is a big problem, but it strikes me that even if we could deliver 'abundance', people would remain unhappy. Tech and money can only get us so much. After-all, despite all of the UK's economic woes and with the US substantially richer than us, it feels as if the US suffers from a much deeper schism in its political, social, and cultural fault lines than we we do.
"Hard to argue with that! Which suggests that it’s not saying much at all."
I liked that line.
I do think the greater issues are ones of deep meaning and disagreement about the good life.
On the other hand, I appreciate what they're trying to do here, which is something I try to bring up in conservative v liberal disputes... e.g. find some sort of common ground/agreement and confront silly strawmen that people are using so they don't have to compromise.
To be fair, I agree! In a more generous mood, I can say that this book does seem to be a good faith effort to point in a new direction, and that in and of itself is useful. I just wanted more, especially because it markets itself so ambitiously.
Since when is the very idea of abundance specifically a democrat, leftist idea? That's not abundance, that's absurd.
It's the oldest political trick in the book: Proclaim that "our side" is for (enter you favorite cause here), and infer that if you are for it, the other side must be against it. Therefore, if liberals are for quality healthcare for all, conservative must be against it. If liberals are for equality, conservatives must be against it. If liberals are alarmed at growing income inequality, conservatives must be for it. If you are for the idea of DEI, the other side must be Nazis.
Today's politics does not center around solving problems, it centers around ego trips. Politicians are good at ego tripos, but they historically suck at solving problems. So, who can solve problems? The private sector. It is the private sector in the USA that has made the USA the place that so many people want to come to. Yes, even when the federal government pours money it doesn't have into providing for illegal aliens, it is the private sector that has actually produced the housing and the food for those illegal aliens, as it does for all of us.
There is an old saying, when you are hammer, every problem looks like a nail. But what if you don't have a hammer? What if you have no tools at all? In that case, some people give speeches, demonstrate in the street, and elect morons that satisfy egos, but solve nothing. And they read books called "Abundance."
According to Adam Smith's moral sentiment, if the set-up is good, ego trips end up solving problems. If the set-up is bad...
Even if so, anyone on an ego trip needs to recognize it's an ego trip. When it becomes all about them, and not about measured results, you end up with NYC. I have little doubt that Mandani and his supporters have good intentions to go along with their out of control egos. But the don't even realize that they answer to their egos before they answer to reality.
Good intentions are not enough. But also, if you start with the right presumptions, you need ego to move along. If you start with wrong presumptions you easily end up making a mess. So one should be careful about saying (and thinking) that the ego is to blame, when in fact, what is wrong with the other people are their presumptions.
There's an old saying, "The road to hell is paved with good intentions."