dajo9 said:

---

Hi sycasey, obviously you can respond to whomever you like. I have just made the simple request that in this thread we don't engage with the fascists. There are numerous other threads in which you can discuss this issue with fascist Cal88. I'd even be willing to start a new thread with a link to his comment for you to continue the conversation. It's just a request.

Fascist Steve Bannon clearly laid out the strategy in 2021, that they would "flood the zone with ****". And that is what they've done across the media landscape including this board. That is why this board has generally become a pile of ***** I am requesting one thread in which we don't allow the zone to be flooded with ***** Obviously it is up to you if you participate.

---

I will reply when I think there is a reasonable point to respond to. Doesn't matter to me who makes it. If it's just trolling I will leave it alone.

sycasey said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

Rural broadband is an issue of per mile per customer math. Just not profitable to seve those customers. Legit debate whether than is a cost of country living but market ain't building fiber when you have 3 people per square mile.

Housing. Poppycock. We have horribly underbuilt. The math is so telling. In San doego where I do my work 1 net new home for every 2.4 net new job over past decade. No surprise prices have risen.

---

On these two points:

1. I think rural people (like most people) just want the broadband thing to work. They don't care much who does it. The problem is that the government's plan didn't happen and Elon Musk had an immediate solution.

2. I tend to agree that more housing supply would control pricing more than anything else. Who owns the buildings is just chipping around the margins; at some point you just run up against "too many people and not enough houses." Solution: build more houses.

I haven't read Abundance yet, but I have listened to Klein and Thompson speak about the ideas on several shows and I find their arguments compelling. Democrats just need to make the government actually do things and build things again. I think there is a thirst for it, and the Republicans certainly aren't delivering either.

---

Rural people have consistently voted against government funding of rural broadband. I don't know why Democrats insist on spending money to give it to them.

---

Can you elaborate on the claim? Were there ballot initiatives to get broadband and rural people voted them down? Or you mean they vote Republican?

---

They vote for politicians who are against it. Dems try to give it to them anyway and get attacked. Just let rural people have what they want and stop spending money on them.

---

That isn't true (at all)

This is just one example of the LEGION of GOP politicians that love rural broadband when it comes. They speak out of both sides of their mouth.

Broadband is vital for the success of our rural communities and for our entire economy.

Great to see Alabama receive crucial funds to boost ongoing broadband efforts. https://t.co/bLvQlSS3LH

— Coach Tommy Tuberville (@SenTuberville) June 27, 2023

And really it isn't about rural individual customers as much as it is about providers like rural hospitals or farm cooperatives or schools who want that connectivity.

---

My point is that if rural communities want broadband they should support candidates that campaign on it and deliver it. Politicians they oppose don't need to spend taxpayer money on it.

---

Part of that is that most voters are not that informed. Lots of political science research on it.

BTW - 1/2 of the way through abundance (it is really good) they haven't mentioned Broadband once. They have talked about the really awful state of housing supply in CA and the importance of nuclear energy as a simple math equation of reducing carbon footprint.

---

Rural broadband has been brought up by Ezra Klein in interviews he has done. As I said, I haven't read the book. To me, uninformed voters is not a viable excuse - it's an admission of guilt. Being uninformed can leave you behind. That's democracy.

---

At some point your argument just boils down to "leave those people to rot." Except they are still around and they still vote, so I'm not sure that is an option, unless you plan to have urban states secede from the country. Democrats need an argument that actually sells. Being able to actually build things that tangibly help those communities might do it.

---

I'd like to focus on things for all of us rather than one-offs that benefit people who hate us. Let's give everybody healthcare. Let's raise everybody's minimum wage. Let's build affordable housing. Let's provide FEMA for all emergencies.

Benefits for specific populations that hate the people funding it are not things I'm interested in.
Things like rural broadband, or VA services, or farmer welfare.

dajo9 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

Rural broadband is an issue of per mile per customer math. Just not profitable to seve those customers. Legit debate whether than is a cost of country living but market ain't building fiber when you have 3 people per square mile.

Housing. Poppycock. We have horribly underbuilt. The math is so telling. In San doego where I do my work 1 net new home for every 2.4 net new job over past decade. No surprise prices have risen.

---

On these two points:

1. I think rural people (like most people) just want the broadband thing to work. They don't care much who does it. The problem is that the government's plan didn't happen and Elon Musk had an immediate solution.

2. I tend to agree that more housing supply would control pricing more than anything else. Who owns the buildings is just chipping around the margins; at some point you just run up against "too many people and not enough houses." Solution: build more houses.

I haven't read Abundance yet, but I have listened to Klein and Thompson speak about the ideas on several shows and I find their arguments compelling. Democrats just need to make the government actually do things and build things again. I think there is a thirst for it, and the Republicans certainly aren't delivering either.

---

Rural people have consistently voted against government funding of rural broadband. I don't know why Democrats insist on spending money to give it to them.

---

Can you elaborate on the claim? Were there ballot initiatives to get broadband and rural people voted them down? Or you mean they vote Republican?

---

They vote for politicians who are against it. Dems try to give it to them anyway and get attacked. Just let rural people have what they want and stop spending money on them.

---

That isn't true (at all)

This is just one example of the LEGION of GOP politicians that love rural broadband when it comes. They speak out of both sides of their mouth.

Broadband is vital for the success of our rural communities and for our entire economy.

Great to see Alabama receive crucial funds to boost ongoing broadband efforts. https://t.co/bLvQlSS3LH

— Coach Tommy Tuberville (@SenTuberville) June 27, 2023

And really it isn't about rural individual customers as much as it is about providers like rural hospitals or farm cooperatives or schools who want that connectivity.

---

My point is that if rural communities want broadband they should support candidates that campaign on it and deliver it. Politicians they oppose don't need to spend taxpayer money on it.

---

Part of that is that most voters are not that informed. Lots of political science research on it.

BTW - 1/2 of the way through abundance (it is really good) they haven't mentioned Broadband once. They have talked about the really awful state of housing supply in CA and the importance of nuclear energy as a simple math equation of reducing carbon footprint.

---

Rural broadband has been brought up by Ezra Klein in interviews he has done. As I said, I haven't read the book. To me, uninformed voters is not a viable excuse - it's an admission of guilt. Being uninformed can leave you behind. That's democracy.

---

At some point your argument just boils down to "leave those people to rot." Except they are still around and they still vote, so I'm not sure that is an option, unless you plan to have urban states secede from the country. Democrats need an argument that actually sells. Being able to actually build things that tangibly help those communities might do it.

---

I'd like to focus on things for all of us rather than one-offs that benefit people who hate us. Let's give everybody healthcare. Let's raise everybody's minimum wage. Let's build affordable housing. Let's provide FEMA for all emergencies.

Benefits for specific populations that hate the people funding it are not things I'm interested in.
Things like rural broadband, or VA services, or farmer welfare.

---

I'd say that broadband internet counts as a "for everyone" thing, much like electrifying rural areas back in the 30s.

sycasey said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

Rural broadband is an issue of per mile per customer math. Just not profitable to seve those customers. Legit debate whether than is a cost of country living but market ain't building fiber when you have 3 people per square mile.

Housing. Poppycock. We have horribly underbuilt. The math is so telling. In San doego where I do my work 1 net new home for every 2.4 net new job over past decade. No surprise prices have risen.

---

On these two points:

1. I think rural people (like most people) just want the broadband thing to work. They don't care much who does it. The problem is that the government's plan didn't happen and Elon Musk had an immediate solution.

2. I tend to agree that more housing supply would control pricing more than anything else. Who owns the buildings is just chipping around the margins; at some point you just run up against "too many people and not enough houses." Solution: build more houses.

I haven't read Abundance yet, but I have listened to Klein and Thompson speak about the ideas on several shows and I find their arguments compelling. Democrats just need to make the government actually do things and build things again. I think there is a thirst for it, and the Republicans certainly aren't delivering either.

---

Rural people have consistently voted against government funding of rural broadband. I don't know why Democrats insist on spending money to give it to them.

---

Can you elaborate on the claim? Were there ballot initiatives to get broadband and rural people voted them down? Or you mean they vote Republican?

---

They vote for politicians who are against it. Dems try to give it to them anyway and get attacked. Just let rural people have what they want and stop spending money on them.

---

That isn't true (at all)

This is just one example of the LEGION of GOP politicians that love rural broadband when it comes. They speak out of both sides of their mouth.

Broadband is vital for the success of our rural communities and for our entire economy.

Great to see Alabama receive crucial funds to boost ongoing broadband efforts. https://t.co/bLvQlSS3LH

— Coach Tommy Tuberville (@SenTuberville) June 27, 2023

And really it isn't about rural individual customers as much as it is about providers like rural hospitals or farm cooperatives or schools who want that connectivity.

---

My point is that if rural communities want broadband they should support candidates that campaign on it and deliver it. Politicians they oppose don't need to spend taxpayer money on it.

---

Part of that is that most voters are not that informed. Lots of political science research on it.

BTW - 1/2 of the way through abundance (it is really good) they haven't mentioned Broadband once. They have talked about the really awful state of housing supply in CA and the importance of nuclear energy as a simple math equation of reducing carbon footprint.

---

Rural broadband has been brought up by Ezra Klein in interviews he has done. As I said, I haven't read the book. To me, uninformed voters is not a viable excuse - it's an admission of guilt. Being uninformed can leave you behind. That's democracy.

---

At some point your argument just boils down to "leave those people to rot." Except they are still around and they still vote, so I'm not sure that is an option, unless you plan to have urban states secede from the country. Democrats need an argument that actually sells. Being able to actually build things that tangibly help those communities might do it.

---

I'd like to focus on things for all of us rather than one-offs that benefit people who hate us. Let's give everybody healthcare. Let's raise everybody's minimum wage. Let's build affordable housing. Let's provide FEMA for all emergencies.

Benefits for specific populations that hate the people funding it are not things I'm interested in.
Things like rural broadband, or VA services, or farmer welfare.

---

I'd say that broadband internet counts as a "for everyone" thing, much like electrifying rural areas back in the 30s.

---

In the 1930s rural constituencies voted for electrification. That is the rational thing for people to do if they want something. Rural communities are not voting for broadband. They clearly aren't taking rational steps to get it. Urban communities paid for their own broadband, more or less, I think. Rural communities should be less dependent on government handouts and if they want government handouts, they should vote for them.

dajo9 said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

The section (so far) on climate change is the extent to which slowing ghg requires building at a scale almost unimaginable. For example (and why he falls on the side of nuclear) the largest solar plant in us is 2000 acres. To fully electrify we would have to build 2 a month every month for next 30 years

---

There isn't a voting constituency for investing to build energy at scale. The problem of being able to build things exists but to me that seems way downstream from the more immediate problem that Americans don't want that.

---

"Don;t want that".

I guess that is where our politics semi-diverge. Obviously voter choice is important but I also tend to believe that there can be bad things that happen when you can't take collective action as well as bad things because humans are not great at looking at future outcomes in a rational way (we are genetically hard wired to overestimate the upside as a ton of great work in behavioral economics has demonstrated.

Ignore climate change and lets take something we know.

Since the VAST majority of voters in Berkeley would be fine and happy and excited for NO GROWTH EVER and slashing the university to about 1/2 its size should we say "well that is what they want, hell yes?" Probably not. Or at least I wouldn't because also stakeholders in that discussion are future Cal students as well as students and moderately income workers who are forced either to choose a different school or commute in from Concord as the voting majority of hill folks dictate who can live in Berkeley.

dajo9 said:

---

Good for Senator Van Hollen for going to El Salvador to check on the illegally abducted and imprisoned Kilmar Abrego Garcia I'm sure it won't go anywhere in El Salvador - but good for him for taking the steps to combat fascism anyway.

"I'm about to board my flight to El Salvador, where I hope to meet with senior government officials to discuss the return of Kilmar Abrego Garcia.

I also hope to see Kilmar and check on his condition and remind him that we won't stop fighting until he's home."

---

I wish the Senator well, but I hope his security detail is geared up and on alert.

socaltownie said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

The section (so far) on climate change is the extent to which slowing ghg requires building at a scale almost unimaginable. For example (and why he falls on the side of nuclear) the largest solar plant in us is 2000 acres. To fully electrify we would have to build 2 a month every month for next 30 years

---

There isn't a voting constituency for investing to build energy at scale. The problem of being able to build things exists but to me that seems way downstream from the more immediate problem that Americans don't want that.

---

"Don;t want that".

I guess that is where our politics semi-diverge. Obviously voter choice is important but I also tend to believe that there can be bad things that happen when you can't take collective action as well as bad things because humans are not great at looking at future outcomes in a rational way (we are genetically hard wired to overestimate the upside as a ton of great work in behavioral economics has demonstrated.

Ignore climate change and lets take something we know.

Since the VAST majority of voters in Berkeley would be fine and happy and excited for NO GROWTH EVER and slashing the university to about 1/2 its size should we say "well that is what they want, hell yes?" Probably not. Or at least I wouldn't because also stakeholders in that discussion are future Cal students as well as students and moderately income workers who are forced either to choose a different school or commute in from Concord as the voting majority of hill folks dictate who can live in Berkeley.

---

No, a city shouldn't be able to dictate what an already existing university can do. The already existing university has its own set of rights. But it should definitely be up to a city whether a new private university is built or not.

My favorite kind of post these days. Leopards eating faces.

https://bsky.app/profile/jurisdudence.bsky.social/post/3lmx65s3h522o

dajo9 said:

---

Hey folks, introducing this thread as a place for discussion for non fascist magats. I have fascist magats blocked. I am not interested in discussing policy and proposals with fascists. My proposal for this thread is that you don't respond to them in this thread. There are plenty of other threads to engage with the fascists. If you respond to the magats in this thread I will block you too. If that leaves me with nobody to discuss with on this board - that is fine with me as well.

---

Lol !!!

socaltownie said:

---

Well I will kick things off.

Has anyone read "Abundance" yet? I downloaded it on Audible yesterday

---

No. I've been listening to How Not To Die.

Conclusion: eat plants!!!!!

socaltownie said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

The section (so far) on climate change is the extent to which slowing ghg requires building at a scale almost unimaginable. For example (and why he falls on the side of nuclear) the largest solar plant in us is 2000 acres. To fully electrify we would have to build 2 a month every month for next 30 years

---

There isn't a voting constituency for investing to build energy at scale. The problem of being able to build things exists but to me that seems way downstream from the more immediate problem that Americans don't want that.

---

"Don;t want that".

I guess that is where our politics semi-diverge. Obviously voter choice is important but I also tend to believe that there can be bad things that happen when you can't take collective action as well as bad things because humans are not great at looking at future outcomes in a rational way (we are genetically hard wired to overestimate the upside as a ton of great work in behavioral economics has demonstrated.

Ignore climate change and lets take something we know.

Since the VAST majority of voters in Berkeley would be fine and happy and excited for NO GROWTH EVER and slashing the university to about 1/2 its size should we say "well that is what they want, hell yes?" Probably not. Or at least I wouldn't because also stakeholders in that discussion are future Cal students as well as students and moderately income workers who are forced either to choose a different school or commute in from Concord as the voting majority of hill folks dictate who can live in Berkeley.

---

I also think that part of the reason those people don't vote for the party that promises to do those things is because the Democrats don't actually accomplish it even when they win. See: Joe Biden promising rural broadband and passing a bill to do it and then it doesn't happen. Perhaps if those things actually happened the voters would be more open to Democrats.

Or maybe not, but I think it's a theory worth testing! That seems to be the position of the Abundance guys too.

Abundance covers that! Vchapter 2

More service from the Federal government to Trump's Russian enablers. 10 years now Russia has been working for Trump and Trump has been working for Russia and you will still find people who call themselves patriotic Americans supporting Trump.

Trump's DOGE was involved in an illegal data extraction from the NLRB and an attempt to steal data from a Russian IP address. The whistleblower subsequently received an anonymous threat from inside the building.
https://www.govexec.com/technology/2025/04/user-russian-ip-address-tried-log-nlrb-systems-following-doge-access-whistleblower-says/404617/

Trump's DOJ is also working on removing the conviction of Alexander Smirnov, the Russian intelligence connected convict who is currently in Federal prison and who distributed lies about President Biden and Ukraine with assistance from Russia. Trump's corrupt DOJ has told the court it is reviewing his case and also asked the court to release him from prison.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-68353303
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-administration-reviewing-case-fbi-informant-convicted-lying/story?id=120718444

dajo9 said:

---

More service from the Federal government to Trump's Russian enablers. 10 years now Russia has been working for Trump and Trump has been working for Russia and you will still find people who call themselves patriotic Americans supporting Trump.

Trump's DOGE was involved in an illegal data extraction from the NLRB and an attempt to steal data from a Russian IP address. The whistleblower subsequently received an anonymous threat from inside the building.
https://www.govexec.com/technology/2025/04/user-russian-ip-address-tried-log-nlrb-systems-following-doge-access-whistleblower-says/404617/

Trump's DOJ is also working on removing the conviction of Alexander Smirnov, the Russian intelligence connected convict who is currently in Federal prison and who distributed lies about President Biden and Ukraine with assistance from Russia. Trump's corrupt DOJ has told the court it is reviewing his case and also asked the court to release him from prison.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-68353303
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-administration-reviewing-case-fbi-informant-convicted-lying/story?id=120718444

---

What is the connection between DOGE and the failed login attempt?

dajo9 said:

---

2) Housing. I think housing should be viewed as another asset. All assets are expensive right now. Stocks, bonds, real estate.

The answer to that is to tax wealth and probably put limitations on foreign / corporate / investor ownership of housing. I think residents of a community should be able to control the development of their community with regulation (zoning). I also think the state should fund affordable housing.

---

I see you haven't changed.
You should probably take another 5 months off.

The Top 10% of American's make up roughly HALF of all consumer spending.
They also happen to own 87% of the U.S. stock market and American public participation in the U.S. stock market is at a record high 53.7%.

A more than likely Recession is coming to our Country and you want to tax people even more.
Brilliant!

DiabloWags said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

2) Housing. I think housing should be viewed as another asset. All assets are expensive right now. Stocks, bonds, real estate.

The answer to that is to tax wealth and probably put limitations on foreign / corporate / investor ownership of housing. I think residents of a community should be able to control the development of their community with regulation (zoning). I also think the state should fund affordable housing.

---

I see you haven't changed.
You should probably take another 5 months off.

---

I think what Klein would say on this is that more money alone (wealth tax) doesn't really effectively solve the problem of underproduction at the scale required. Chapter 3 is so telling as it delves into all the requirements that come with money to build affordable housing. This is not a Dem/R problem. It is, however, the "everything bagel" problem as requirement over requirement is layered ontop of the other goal. This is true in a host of over government services. The private sector isn't the answer because many of these goods the private sector won't produce and, even worse, incumbent firms have an incentive to KEEP the system the way it is since it is highly profitable and a steep barrier to entry.

Rather, the abundance agenda calls for capacity building around the core goal. If it is to increase housing capacity to do That and mostly just that and get all the other things out of the way so we can build it rapidly, affordable and have resouces left to solve other core problems.

The funny thing is that this is not rocket science. We KNOW this in almost all our lives. Try to do everything? Accomplish nothing.

socaltownie said:

---

DiabloWags said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

2) Housing. I think housing should be viewed as another asset. All assets are expensive right now. Stocks, bonds, real estate.

The answer to that is to tax wealth and probably put limitations on foreign / corporate / investor ownership of housing. I think residents of a community should be able to control the development of their community with regulation (zoning). I also think the state should fund affordable housing.

---

I see you haven't changed.
You should probably take another 5 months off.

---

I think what Klein would say on this is that more money alone (wealth tax) doesn't really effectively solve the problem of underproduction at the scale required. Chapter 3 is so telling as it delves into all the requirements that come with money to build affordable housing. This is not a Dem/R problem. It is, however, the "everything bagel" problem as requirement over requirement is layered ontop of the other goal. This is true in a host of over government services. The private sector isn't the answer because many of these goods the private sector won't produce and, even worse, incumbent firms have an incentive to KEEP the system the way it is since it is highly profitable and a steep barrier to entry.

Rather, the abundance agenda calls for capacity building around the core goal. If it is to increase housing capacity to do That and mostly just that and get all the other things out of the way so we can build it rapidly, affordable and have resouces left to solve other core problems.

The funny thing is that this is not rocket science. We KNOW this in almost all our lives. Try to do everything? Accomplish nothing.

---

That seems to be the argument: to solve housing affordability, just build more housing, period, and it doesn't matter that much who does it. I tend to agree. Not saying it would all be perfect, but it would address the core problem.

California Legislature Releases Sweeping Bill Package to Fast Track Housing Production | Official Website - Assemblymember Buffy Wicks Representing the 14th California Assembly District

"Right now, it takes far too long to build the housing Californians need and that's a failure of government," said Assemblymember Wicks (D-Oakland)

"The Fast Track Housing package is about making our systems work better: clearer rules, faster timelines, and fewer bureaucratic hoops. It's not about cutting corners it's about being honest that what we're doing isn't working. This package reflects a broad, bipartisan commitment to saying yes to housing, yes to progress, and yes to a government that helps solve problems instead of creating them."

The package targets the five key bottlenecks that delay housing development: application, CEQA compliance, entitlement, post-entitlement, and enforcement. By addressing inefficiencies at every step, lawmakers aim to reduce project timelines, cut costs, and get shovels in the ground faster.

California is facing a staggering housing crisis, with a shortfall of 2.5 million homes and nearly 200,000 individuals experiencing homelessness. Eighty percent of low-income households are burdened by rent costs, and are often forced to choose between maintaining stable housing and covering other basic necessities. For most Californians, homeownership remains out of reach.


March 27th, 2025

DiabloWags said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

2) Housing. I think housing should be viewed as another asset. All assets are expensive right now. Stocks, bonds, real estate.

The answer to that is to tax wealth and probably put limitations on foreign / corporate / investor ownership of housing. I think residents of a community should be able to control the development of their community with regulation (zoning). I also think the state should fund affordable housing.

---

I see you haven't changed.
You should probably take another 5 months off.

The Top 10% of American's make up roughly HALF of all consumer spending.
They also happen to own 87% of the U.S. stock market and American public participation in the U.S. stock market is at a record high 53.7%.

A more than likely Recession is coming to our Country and you want to tax people even more.
Brilliant!

---

Don't worry, I won't change. I definitely want to tax wealth and rebalance our economy.

dajo9 said:

---

Don't worry, I won't change. I definitely want to tax wealth and rebalance our economy.

---

Because in your world, career politicians and bureaucrats know how to spend our money better than we do.
You're faith in these people is terribly stupid.

DiabloWags said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

Don't worry, I won't change. I definitely want to tax wealth and rebalance our economy.

---

Because in your world, career politicians and bureaucrats know how to spend our money better than we do.
You're faith in these people is terribly stupid.

---

You continue to purposefully misunderstand the argument. First, there is the matter of paying down the debt. Second, my doctor knows how to spend my money better than insurance bureaucrats. We need to dramatically reform our health care to lower costs and improve service along the lines of Western Europe. Third, the savings glut is distorting asset prices, like housing and we need to remedy that. Fourth, the wealthy have used their money to accumulate too much political power. We need to remedy that.

concordtom said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

Well I will kick things off.

Has anyone read "Abundance" yet? I downloaded it on Audible yesterday

---

No. I've been listening to How Not To Die.

Conclusion: eat plants!!!!!

---

You're only buying time

lol

sycasey said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

DiabloWags said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

2) Housing. I think housing should be viewed as another asset. All assets are expensive right now. Stocks, bonds, real estate.

The answer to that is to tax wealth and probably put limitations on foreign / corporate / investor ownership of housing. I think residents of a community should be able to control the development of their community with regulation (zoning). I also think the state should fund affordable housing.

---

I see you haven't changed.
You should probably take another 5 months off.

---

I think what Klein would say on this is that more money alone (wealth tax) doesn't really effectively solve the problem of underproduction at the scale required. Chapter 3 is so telling as it delves into all the requirements that come with money to build affordable housing. This is not a Dem/R problem. It is, however, the "everything bagel" problem as requirement over requirement is layered ontop of the other goal. This is true in a host of over government services. The private sector isn't the answer because many of these goods the private sector won't produce and, even worse, incumbent firms have an incentive to KEEP the system the way it is since it is highly profitable and a steep barrier to entry.

Rather, the abundance agenda calls for capacity building around the core goal. If it is to increase housing capacity to do That and mostly just that and get all the other things out of the way so we can build it rapidly, affordable and have resouces left to solve other core problems.

The funny thing is that this is not rocket science. We KNOW this in almost all our lives. Try to do everything? Accomplish nothing.

---

That seems to be the argument: to solve housing affordability, just build more housing, period, and it doesn't matter that much who does it. I tend to agree. Not saying it would all be perfect, but it would address the core problem.

---

Yup. And then an argument/analysis of WHY we are failing to produce enough housing...or mass trasnit...or green energy....or educational innovation. It is really a wonderful exploration of a "third way" of thinking about our challenges that is neither left or right. If forced to categorize the Abundance agenda, I would call it anti-progressive in the original way that Wilson and the early 20th century progressives defined their mission as regulating the state and market through technocratic "solutions".

I thought that we were sorta past this whole "oh so last decade" arguments about savings gluts since 1) it doesn't seem like we have as much cash on balance sheets as we did 20 years ago and 2) There are reasons to believe we WANT savings (and asset appreciation) as the OECD has a huge demographic problem to deal with as society ages.

Do you have something recent you like on this? Definitely interested in reading more and seeing new stuff on this topic.

dajo9 said:

---

concordtom said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

Well I will kick things off.

Has anyone read "Abundance" yet? I downloaded it on Audible yesterday

---

No. I've been listening to How Not To Die.

Conclusion: eat plants!!!!!

---

You're only buying time

lol

---

True.
But maybe even some better health along the way.
My high school classmates have been dropping in our mid-50's.

And if I eat fewer cows, and they do less of burping and farting and use less water and land, then I'm helping others, too.

Maybe I can teach others, like my kids, along the way.

concordtom said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

concordtom said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

Well I will kick things off.

Has anyone read "Abundance" yet? I downloaded it on Audible yesterday

---

No. I've been listening to How Not To Die.

Conclusion: eat plants!!!!!

---

You're only buying time

lol

---

True.
But maybe even some better health along the way.
My high school classmates have been dropping in our mid-50's.

And if I eat fewer cows, and they do less of burping and farting and use less water and land, then I'm helping others, too.

Maybe I can teach others, like my kids, along the way.

---

I am definitely eating less meat than i used to. I could be vegetarian. I dont have a strong desire to and if people serve me meat I'm going to eat it. But if left to my devices I could go without meat. Oatmeal, berries, rice, vegetables, salads, beans, eggs, fruits and I'm good.

dajo9 said:

---

Good for Senator Van Hollen for going to El Salvador to check on the illegally abducted and imprisoned Kilmar Abrego Garcia I'm sure it won't go anywhere in El Salvador - but good for him for taking the steps to combat fascism anyway.

"I'm about to board my flight to El Salvador, where I hope to meet with senior government officials to discuss the return of Kilmar Abrego Garcia.

I also hope to see Kilmar and check on his condition and remind him that we won't stop fighting until he's home."

---

Good for Senator Van Hollen for forcing a meeting with Kilmar. Keep up the pressure and make the government obey the law.

https://bsky.app/profile/vanhollen.senate.gov/post/3ln2gcpf6js2m
"I said my main goal of this trip was to meet with Kilmar. Tonight I had that chance. I have called his wife, Jennifer, to pass along his message of love. I look forward to providing a full update upon my return."

dajo9 said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

Well I will kick things off.

Has anyone read "Abundance" yet? I downloaded it on Audible yesterday and excited to make it part of my "go for a run" playlist.

It absolutely resonates with my feelings that a big challenge for the democratic party is how (and this maybe true of ALL long-standing political parties) gives way too many people "veto gates" that essentially preclude much of ANYTHING getting done. That becomes a real problem when a core message is that you are the party of change and progress.

And of course close to CMS we have a great example - the actions of the Panoramic Hill people (and the tree sitter) which arguably torpedoed the chances of the Bears for breaking through and really having a transformative set of seasons. Of course that is "just" football but you see it in so many cases.

And I might argue that these vetogates will ultimately cause the demise of the Trumpian project. The courts (acting on the law) have absolutely slowed his efforts and unless he keeps both houses it is likely that everything will grind to a halt.

---

I partly agree and disagree with you. I haven't read Abundance so I don't have a strong opinion about it. I do believe there are too many veto-gates. The courts have too much power in this country and legislate too much.

The Abundance talk I've heard is twofold. 1) rural broadband - My view on that is rural people want the rural broadband market to be private and don't want government funding for it so the govt should just stop.

2) Housing. I think housing should be viewed as another asset. All assets are expensive right now. Stocks, bonds, real estate. The answer to that is to tax wealth and probably put limitations on foreign / corporate / investor ownership of housing. I think residents of a community should be able to control the development of their community with regulation (zoning). I also think the state should fund affordable housing.

---

OMG! #2!!! You're the first I've seen suggest this. Thank you! I've asked why this isn't discussed. Well, I think I understand why, because it will be viewed as racist or nationalistic. Well, we simply have to ask ourselves, are homes for living or providing investment opportunities for the world? I think it's clear the answer is the former. Sure, we who own real estate love our equity. But that wealth has come at the cost of prohibiting our kids & grand kids from owning property.

This isn't the only issue however. Plus, I really feel "Abundance" is jumping to the wrong conclusion.

I also feel building in modern society involves much more than it did in the 40's & 50's. We simply cannot go back to no environmental review, rampant, ill-conceived sprawl, or just giving up on green space preservation. Responsible, efficient, and smart building is the way forward. More of the same only creates more traffic, congestion & pollution.

Plus, can you imagine trying to get around in the Bay Area, LA or any other urban metro area with TWICE the number of housing units? Impossible, unless we make DRASTIC changes to our habits.

Our "housing crisis" doesn't appear to have anything to do with shortage. This debunks their entire theory and solution to build.

Currently, this is the situation:
San Francisco has 8,300 homeless.
San Francisco has 40,000 empty housing units.
California has 187,000 homeless.
California has 1,200,000 empty housing units.
The United states has 650,000 homeless.
The United States has 16,000,000 empty housing units.
Additionally, Detroit alone has bulldozed 700,000+ homes.

Given these vacancy numbers, how will building more be a solution?

Plus, as a rental housing provider, I went TWO years with four units out of six vacant. By no means high-end, luxury units. Reasonable asking rents. But given rent control, couldn't drop prices precipitously. Basic housing stock at current market rents. Two years.

Oakland has had about 50,000 new housing units hit market. They're not filling. At all. Owners have been foreclosed on. Yes, these fall more into the "luxury" category, but not THAT outrageous.

How many homes must be built to really drop housing prices? Millions nationwide. Probably millions in CA too.

But honestly, would 2 million brand new homes in CA drastically drop housing prices?

If so, how much?

20%, 30%, 50%?

I highly doubt much over 20%.

And if that's the case, then that will do nothing to get struggling Americans into new homes.

I feel we have a SERIOUS wage problem. And it seems progressives won't even touch the issue.

Why is that?

60 years of declining worker wages have real consequences. Does "Abundance" even tackle this?

(I admit I haven't read it. But in their interviews, I have not heard them mention the lack of wage growth, not criticism of the free market and its abject failure to address the problems. Only bashing of our maligned government.)

TandemBear said:

---

Plus, can you imagine trying to get around in the Bay Area, LA or any other urban metro area with TWICE the number of housing units?

---

Well, yes. Most Asian or European cities have higher density than that.

Quote:

---

Yup. And then an argument/analysis of WHY we are failing to produce enough housing...or mass trasnit...or green energy....or educational innovation. It is really a wonderful exploration of a "third way" of thinking about our challenges that is neither left or right. If forced to categorize the Abundance agenda, I would call it anti-progressive in the original way that Wilson and the early 20th century progressives defined their mission as regulating the state and market through technocratic "solutions".

---

Ok, everyone keeps saying, "enough housing."

What do you mean? What does the media mean when they say this??

If the US has 16M empty housing units, how many empty units to you think are needed for there to be "enough?" Double that? Triple?

Or, how many homes need to be built?

If we built 1M new homes in CA tomorrow, what would the outcome be?
Housing prices would drop XX percent?
Rents would drop XX percent?

There's all this talk of "more" but without a SINGLE qualification or expected outcomes stated.

Which makes me conclude that this "more housing" solution is merely being pushed by big money, developers and real estate. They don't really think it will fix anything, but will keep the gravy train rolling for them. Big money earns more money while the number of homeless continues to grow.

TandemBear said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

Well I will kick things off.

Has anyone read "Abundance" yet? I downloaded it on Audible yesterday and excited to make it part of my "go for a run" playlist.

It absolutely resonates with my feelings that a big challenge for the democratic party is how (and this maybe true of ALL long-standing political parties) gives way too many people "veto gates" that essentially preclude much of ANYTHING getting done. That becomes a real problem when a core message is that you are the party of change and progress.

And of course close to CMS we have a great example - the actions of the Panoramic Hill people (and the tree sitter) which arguably torpedoed the chances of the Bears for breaking through and really having a transformative set of seasons. Of course that is "just" football but you see it in so many cases.

And I might argue that these vetogates will ultimately cause the demise of the Trumpian project. The courts (acting on the law) have absolutely slowed his efforts and unless he keeps both houses it is likely that everything will grind to a halt.

---

I partly agree and disagree with you. I haven't read Abundance so I don't have a strong opinion about it. I do believe there are too many veto-gates. The courts have too much power in this country and legislate too much.

The Abundance talk I've heard is twofold. 1) rural broadband - My view on that is rural people want the rural broadband market to be private and don't want government funding for it so the govt should just stop.

2) Housing. I think housing should be viewed as another asset. All assets are expensive right now. Stocks, bonds, real estate. The answer to that is to tax wealth and probably put limitations on foreign / corporate / investor ownership of housing. I think residents of a community should be able to control the development of their community with regulation (zoning). I also think the state should fund affordable housing.

---

OMG! #2!!! You're the first I've seen suggest this. Thank you! I've asked why this isn't discussed. Well, I think I understand why, because it will be viewed as racist or nationalistic. Well, we simply have to ask ourselves, are homes for living or providing investment opportunities for the world? I think it's clear the answer is the former. Sure, we who own real estate love our equity. But that wealth has come at the cost of prohibiting our kids & grand kids from owning property.

This isn't the only issue however. Plus, I really feel "Abundance" is jumping to the wrong conclusion.

I also feel building in modern society involves much more than it did in the 40's & 50's. We simply cannot go back to no environmental review, rampant, ill-conceived sprawl, or just giving up on green space preservation. Responsible, efficient, and smart building is the way forward. More of the same only creates more traffic, congestion & pollution.

Plus, can you imagine trying to get around in the Bay Area, LA or any other urban metro area with TWICE the number of housing units? Impossible, unless we make DRASTIC changes to our habits.

Our "housing crisis" doesn't appear to have anything to do with shortage. This debunks their entire theory and solution to build.

Currently, this is the situation:
San Francisco has 8,300 homeless.
San Francisco has 40,000 empty housing units.
California has 187,000 homeless.
California has 1,200,000 empty housing units.
The United states has 650,000 homeless.
The United States has 16,000,000 empty housing units.
Additionally, Detroit alone has bulldozed 700,000+ homes.

Given these vacancy numbers, how will building more be a solution?

Plus, as a rental housing provider, I went TWO years with four units out of six vacant. By no means high-end, luxury units. Reasonable asking rents. But given rent control, couldn't drop prices precipitously. Basic housing stock at current market rents. Two years.

Oakland has had about 50,000 new housing units hit market. They're not filling. At all. Owners have been foreclosed on. Yes, these fall more into the "luxury" category, but not THAT outrageous.

How many homes must be built to really drop housing prices? Millions nationwide. Probably millions in CA too.

But honestly, would 2 million brand new homes in CA drastically drop housing prices?

If so, how much?

20%, 30%, 50%?

I highly doubt much over 20%.

And if that's the case, then that will do nothing to get struggling Americans into new homes.

I feel we have a SERIOUS wage problem. And it seems progressives won't even touch the issue.

Why is that?

60 years of declining worker wages have real consequences. Does "Abundance" even tackle this?

(I admit I haven't read it. But in their interviews, I have not heard them mention the lack of wage growth, not criticism of the free market and its abject failure to address the problems. Only bashing of our maligned government.)

---

Read the book. tell me where the examples fail and why it should take 8 years to build 140 unit affordable hiousing project on a lot that the city owns at 700,000 a unit.

Also the 1.2 million number is misleading.

Just about 8% of total housing stock.
Includes temporarily unoccupied, second homes, units being renovated, or those held for speculation or investment. and reflects a snap shot in time from the census.

Here is some context

https://calmatters.org/housing/2020/03/vacancy-fines-california-housing-crisis-homeless/

Of course it has EVERYTHING to do with shortage. Houston has the lowest homeless population in the country. They build a RIDICULOUSLY large number of homes and median housing prices is 300K. I am not saying we should be houston but it is clear there is a clear relationship between the number of homes produced and price.

And ask yourself, why not just :lower your rent"? Because as you say the government intervention and the well meaning ideas of rent control made that economically dumb.

I will also say that I don't find Klein and Thompson to be "big bad government" type guys. They are pretty left-wing guys ideologically. Their argument is more against the government getting in its own way when trying to help people.

sycasey said:

---

I will also say that I don't find Klein and Thompson to be "big bad government" type guys. They are pretty left-wing guys ideologically. Their argument is more against the government getting in its own way when trying to help people.

---

Yup. I think a key argument is that because of trying to allow all stakeholders voice and trying to get the perfect project nothing gets done and that hurts liberal goals. I might extend their argument that an appeal of trump is that he does something. Maybe bad but he is acting compared to liberal paralysis. The story of the i95 bridge rebuild (or the actions in Baltimore harbor in demoing the Francis Scott key Bridge) shows the state can act...we need to declutter the obstacles to its effectiveness to achieve abundance.

socaltownie said:

---

TandemBear said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

Well I will kick things off.

Has anyone read "Abundance" yet? I downloaded it on Audible yesterday and excited to make it part of my "go for a run" playlist.

It absolutely resonates with my feelings that a big challenge for the democratic party is how (and this maybe true of ALL long-standing political parties) gives way too many people "veto gates" that essentially preclude much of ANYTHING getting done. That becomes a real problem when a core message is that you are the party of change and progress.

And of course close to CMS we have a great example - the actions of the Panoramic Hill people (and the tree sitter) which arguably torpedoed the chances of the Bears for breaking through and really having a transformative set of seasons. Of course that is "just" football but you see it in so many cases.

And I might argue that these vetogates will ultimately cause the demise of the Trumpian project. The courts (acting on the law) have absolutely slowed his efforts and unless he keeps both houses it is likely that everything will grind to a halt.

---

I partly agree and disagree with you. I haven't read Abundance so I don't have a strong opinion about it. I do believe there are too many veto-gates. The courts have too much power in this country and legislate too much.

The Abundance talk I've heard is twofold. 1) rural broadband - My view on that is rural people want the rural broadband market to be private and don't want government funding for it so the govt should just stop.

2) Housing. I think housing should be viewed as another asset. All assets are expensive right now. Stocks, bonds, real estate. The answer to that is to tax wealth and probably put limitations on foreign / corporate / investor ownership of housing. I think residents of a community should be able to control the development of their community with regulation (zoning). I also think the state should fund affordable housing.

---

OMG! #2!!! You're the first I've seen suggest this. Thank you! I've asked why this isn't discussed. Well, I think I understand why, because it will be viewed as racist or nationalistic. Well, we simply have to ask ourselves, are homes for living or providing investment opportunities for the world? I think it's clear the answer is the former. Sure, we who own real estate love our equity. But that wealth has come at the cost of prohibiting our kids & grand kids from owning property.

This isn't the only issue however. Plus, I really feel "Abundance" is jumping to the wrong conclusion.

I also feel building in modern society involves much more than it did in the 40's & 50's. We simply cannot go back to no environmental review, rampant, ill-conceived sprawl, or just giving up on green space preservation. Responsible, efficient, and smart building is the way forward. More of the same only creates more traffic, congestion & pollution.

Plus, can you imagine trying to get around in the Bay Area, LA or any other urban metro area with TWICE the number of housing units? Impossible, unless we make DRASTIC changes to our habits.

Our "housing crisis" doesn't appear to have anything to do with shortage. This debunks their entire theory and solution to build.

Currently, this is the situation:
San Francisco has 8,300 homeless.
San Francisco has 40,000 empty housing units.
California has 187,000 homeless.
California has 1,200,000 empty housing units.
The United states has 650,000 homeless.
The United States has 16,000,000 empty housing units.
Additionally, Detroit alone has bulldozed 700,000+ homes.

Given these vacancy numbers, how will building more be a solution?

Plus, as a rental housing provider, I went TWO years with four units out of six vacant. By no means high-end, luxury units. Reasonable asking rents. But given rent control, couldn't drop prices precipitously. Basic housing stock at current market rents. Two years.

Oakland has had about 50,000 new housing units hit market. They're not filling. At all. Owners have been foreclosed on. Yes, these fall more into the "luxury" category, but not THAT outrageous.

How many homes must be built to really drop housing prices? Millions nationwide. Probably millions in CA too.

But honestly, would 2 million brand new homes in CA drastically drop housing prices?

If so, how much?

20%, 30%, 50%?

I highly doubt much over 20%.

And if that's the case, then that will do nothing to get struggling Americans into new homes.

I feel we have a SERIOUS wage problem. And it seems progressives won't even touch the issue.

Why is that?

60 years of declining worker wages have real consequences. Does "Abundance" even tackle this?

(I admit I haven't read it. But in their interviews, I have not heard them mention the lack of wage growth, not criticism of the free market and its abject failure to address the problems. Only bashing of our maligned government.)

---

Read the book. tell me where the examples fail and why it should take 8 years to build 140 unit affordable hiousing project on a lot that the city owns at 700,000 a unit.

Also the 1.2 million number is misleading.

Just about 8% of total housing stock.
Includes temporarily unoccupied, second homes, units being renovated, or those held for speculation or investment. and reflects a snap shot in time from the census.

Here is some context

https://calmatters.org/housing/2020/03/vacancy-fines-california-housing-crisis-homeless/

Of course it has EVERYTHING to do with shortage. Houston has the lowest homeless population in the country. They build a RIDICULOUSLY large number of homes and median housing prices is 300K. I am not saying we should be houston but it is clear there is a clear relationship between the number of homes produced and price.

And ask yourself, why not just :lower your rent"? Because as you say the government intervention and the well meaning ideas of rent control made that economically dumb.

---

The 140 units taking 8 years has nothing to do with anything. Please explain to me how you're going to build a $150k house in San Jose? Because THAT'S what's needed to put the bottom 30% of wage earners in homes to own. Let developers go wild and you STILL end up with $2M homes in CA urban areas.

You're comparing apples to oranges. Texas is totally pro-growth and has practically zero limits. That model doesn't apply to most developed, urban areas.

But you fail to give me ACTUAL NUMBERS.
How many homes will bring prices down 10%?
And then how many 20%, etc?

Plus, developed economies don't rely on endless expansion. Europe obviously doesn't have the ability to grow & expand without limit. At least that's not their model. The realize they need to preserve growth boundaries to preserve agriculture and greenbelts.

You point at government being the limiter.

I look at the "free market" as failing.

How do you allow a city like Detroit to bulldoze 700,000 homes while homeless camps grow?

That's a failure on a national level to not preserve housing stock.

If you truly value homes over people's heads, you don't watch cities fail and homes demolished.

Your CalMatters article starts with this:
"California has a housing shortage, so the idea of a big, faceless corporation keeping thousands of homes empty for months is pretty frustrating. But a new proposal in California is aimed at changing that by allowing cities and counties to impose vacancy fines."

How does California have a housing shortage? They've reached this conclusion without any evidence! This is where I think they fail. They've simply taken this statement as fact without even thinking about it. How would 1M new homes in California make any difference for the bottom tier of wage earners? I don't think it would make a difference at all.