The answer to a politics of scarcity is a politics of abundance, a politics that asks what it is that people really need, and then organizes government and markets to make sure there is enough of it. Government is not simply good at all times. It is not simply bad at all times. [00:00:16] Sometimes government has to get out of the way. I think that the original progressive populist brand of about 100 years ago, we've got to bring that back to the center of what being a progressive is. And I hope that that actually helps transform the Democratic Party as well. [00:00:31] The point of the Democratic Party is to break the unholy alliance between corporate greed and corrupt government, and stop. There's this ongoing debate among the left over what the Democratic Party [00:00:46] should focus on moving forward and how they should basically, you know, frame their messaging. Okay, so there's the so-called abundance crowd, led by Ezra Klein and his coauthor, Derek Thompson. They co-wrote a book called abundance, and it's getting a lot of attention, [00:01:03] a lot of backlash from some on the left, and we'll get into that in just a minute. Others want to focus their energy on economic populism, and there's a new survey that found that Democratic voters have chosen a side. [00:01:18] My issue, though, is the framing of this whole thing because it's incredibly dumb. You can have progressive policies, you can have the most progressive policies on the planet, but you can't actually effectively implement those progressive policies [00:01:37] when there are regulations that are cynically used to prevent the effective and successful implementation of those policies. So you can literally throw tens of billions of dollars at building affordable housing, but that money goes nowhere if you have homeowners, [00:01:55] for instance, who cynically use environmental regulations to either slow the process or prevent the process from happening altogether. And that's what Ezra Klein is trying to communicate. I've read his book. I don't agree with everything he has in there. [00:02:10] I am worried about certain forms of deregulation that will backfire and hurt people for sure. However, I also live in California, where we have had a severe housing shortage for a long time. That only gets worse. And I see how everything plays out. [00:02:28] There's a new housing development that's been voted on. The state legislature will fund it and it never gets built. The the bullet train that was supposed to go from Los Angeles to San Francisco, [00:02:44] that's never going to be built. And we keep throwing more money at it. And the reason why it's never going to be built is because, again, the same regulations keep getting cited in an effort to prevent the construction Production of, you know, that form of public transit. [00:02:59] So I just think, like they're talking over each other and it's driving me crazy because I actually think there's a it's actually important for both, you know, sides here to understand that they're both making really good points and one needs the other. [00:03:15] You're not going to be able to implement these progressive policies unless you stop the cynical use of these regulations to serve as obstacles to implementing these policies. That's my take. But no one is talking about it that way. Everyone's talking about it as if it's abundance versus progressive policies. [00:03:34] And I just don't think that's the right framing. So as a result, the survey was done of 1200 registered voters. It was commissioned by Demand Progress, which, as you can imagine, is a progressive advocacy organization. And it's carried out by YouGov. So here's how they defined the abundance argument to survey the respondents. [00:03:53] They say the big problem is bottlenecks that make it harder to produce housing, expand energy production, or build new roads and bridges. Frequently, these bottlenecks take the form of well-intentioned regulations meant to give people a voice or to protect the environment. [00:04:11] But these regulations are exploited by organized interest groups and community groups to slow things down, by the way. All the credit to demand progress for accurately describing the abundance argument that is an accurate description. Okay, this increase costs. [00:04:27] This increases costs and makes it harder for us to provide for everybody's needs. We need to push back against these groups so that government and economy can work together or work better, I should say, for working and middle class Americans. [00:04:42] So the survey asked if a candidate for Congress or president made the abundance argument, would that make you more likely or less likely to vote for them. And let's look at the results. Among Democratic voters, only 32.6% said they'd be more [00:04:59] likely to vote for that person. I don't think that's surprising when you consider the fact that the Democratic Party has attracted affluent voters, many of whom probably own homes. They hate abundance. And they hate abundance because they're a bunch of NIMBYs. [00:05:15] Let's keep it real. They're NIMBYs. They don't want to build the housing developments. They don't want it in their backyard. Okay, let's just keep it real. Okay. Let me give you more, though. Among independents, the percentage was slightly higher at 40.6%. [00:05:31] So let's compare that to the populism approach. And by the way I agree with populists. But populists need to understand your policies aren't getting implemented. There will be massive obstacles to it unless we actually address the cynical use [00:05:47] of these regulations to prevent you from effectively implementing your policies. So this is how they are defined. The populist argument in the survey. The big problem is that big corporations have way too much power over our economy and our government. [00:06:02] I agree with that. They work to prevent the government from making investments in things like expanding access to affordable clean energy, housing and infrastructure improvements so that they can maximize their own profits. Corporations also try to raise prices by as much as they can, [00:06:18] which is easier than ever because the economy is so concentrated in the hands of just a few people. We need to hold these corporations accountable and reduce their power, so the government and economy can work better for working and middle class Americans. [00:06:35] Now, asked if they'd be more or less likely to support a candidate making that populist argument. Here's what the respondents said. Okay, so take a look at this. Among Democratic voters, an overwhelming 72.5% said they'd be more [00:06:51] likely to vote for that person. Among independents, the percentage was slightly lower at 55.4%. Finally, given a direct choice, 59% of Democrats preferred the populist argument, compared to just 16.8% liking [00:07:10] the abundance one. 44.3% of independents also chose populist, compared to 28.4% who chose abundance. I think both things are true, and no one got an opportunity to vote on [00:07:27] that or answer in that way in the survey. But I'm really curious what you think was, because I don't think that most people who have been trashing Ezra Klein lately have actually read the book. I think that they just hear the word deregulation and they freak out. - That's part of it. - Yeah, for good reason. [00:07:44] Right. Because deregulation has really been this mission of the right for all sorts of nefarious reasons. But again, I also have seen with my own two eyes in the state I live in, where those regulations are cynically used by Democrats [00:08:01] to kind of gum up the whole system and prevent things from getting better, prevent important, you know, housing developments and things like that. So I, I think there's two ways to look at this or not even two ways. There's one way to look at it. I think Ezra Klein, people look at him, I think quite correctly, as a neoliberal [00:08:22] in the sense that he's just like, yo, we need to open up the market, and the market is going to fix this by itself. I just totally disagree. I think there just has to be a pairing like Ezra Klein needs to admit that the government needs to enact some level of price controls or rent control [00:08:41] or whatever the hell you want to call it. In a in concert with and opening up of, you know, the regulations on housing because there's California with all the NIMBYs. But then I think about New York City, where they don't have trouble [00:08:59] building in Manhattan when they finally do get to build. And what do they do? They sell it to Saudis to park their money, to Chinese people, to park their money, to Russian oligarchs, to park their money. Like that's what they do with the apartments. [00:09:15] Yeah. It needs to be banned. That needs to be banned. Full stop foreign wealthy people who just want to park their money in this real estate that don't live in America. - Happen in an unregulated California. - Exactly. - Estate market. - No, no. Hold on, hold on. That would happen. That's been happening in California. [00:09:33] That's been happening in California. So you want to talk about deregulation? I just think it's interesting that, like Ezra Klein is very specific about the deregulation he's talking about. Right. But when it comes to those who love regulations so much, [00:09:48] why aren't they making a big stink about the fact that Saudis are, you know, Chinese business people and Russian oligarchs have been buying up residential real estate all over the place. I think that's one of the main. And I remember reading about this and it just blew my mind. [00:10:03] It was about like these ghost apartments on in the West Side of Manhattan, like, basically like Midtown, but like way out west, like ninth, 10th Avenue, all these new high rises that had been built up and they called them ghost apartments. And it's like, yeah, like these guys that have that are have Russian ties [00:10:23] or Chinese ties or whatever they know, like one day Putin or the CCP could be like, go screw yourself. We're taking all your stuff. Guess what? I got this nest egg in America and in America, my money is going to be safe in that apartment, in that condo, blah, blah blah. [00:10:40] So a lot of people invest in that, in those empty apartments that nobody live in, then jack up the rent prices in the surrounding areas, which is just so insanely unfair to the people who live and work in New York City. [00:10:58] And I think, you know, a lot of that. If the if we just say, oh, let's just take the reins off, let people build, build, build, which I think would be great. I think we do need more housing. I think a lot of that, man, a lot of times will end up, they're just going to sell some some foreigners. Bro, know you make a bunch of Emiratis with cribs out here. [00:11:16] You make a really good point. And by the way, I think I have some credit on this because it's an issue that I've been talking about on the show for years about this. Right? Yeah. And so I think what Ezra Klein said about how regulations aren't, [00:11:31] by definition, good or bad. It depends. So, yeah, there needs to be regulation preventing, you know these business interests in foreign countries buying up residential real estate that should absolutely be reserved for Americans who need housing at a time when we have [00:11:48] a severe housing shortage. At the same time, though, the high speed rail in California, I love that Ezra Klein keeps bringing up that specific example because it has been many, many years. The costs have inflated significantly for that project. [00:12:06] Originally, it was supposed to, take people from LA to San Francisco. Now it's just going to be from, like, I forget, I think it might be like. L.A. To Bakersfield. Yeah. LA to. [00:12:22] I mean, no offense to Bakersfield, but we're not, like, dying. - For. - A public transit option. - To take us. - Straight to Bakersfield. No. We're not. That's not what voters in California voted on. That's not what they, were willing to fund. [00:12:38] And look, part of me wants to, like, strangle people like Gavin Newsom, who's going to throw an additional billion dollars a year at that project that seems to be going absolutely nowhere. But the underlying issue isn't Newsom, and it isn't the fact that we don't [00:12:56] have politicians who are willing to spend the money on these things. They are in California. They literally are willing to spend the money. It's just that there are all sorts of property owners all across the state that want to. They just want to protect what they have. [00:13:13] Right. That that's the way they think of it. So they don't want riff raff in their neighborhoods. They don't want congestion in their neighborhoods. And look, to some level, I get it, I get it, I live in LA. I get how frustrating the congestion can be. [00:13:32] Sometimes I just want to go out and walk my dog without the freaking couple with their two golden retrievers who don't understand. I don't want your dogs near my dog because my dog doesn't want to be near your dogs. Can you just keep your distance? I get it, I get it. However, you live in a society, okay? You live in a city. [00:13:52] And if you make if you've made the decision to live in a city, then you have to absorb the good and the bad, and sometimes the bad is that there are a lot of other people who live in that city, and a lot of them need housing. And if you stand in the way of that housing, well, then you're going to be surrounded by encampments. [00:14:09] And I don't want to hear any complaining from the Nimby crowd about the encampments. When you're standing in the way and you're cynically using environmental regulations to prevent the development of housing that we desperately need, that's what Ezra Klein is trying to get at. And I don't know why it's so offensive to people. [00:14:27] It's either because they didn't actually read his book, or they're adding arguments to what he's saying, that he's not actually saying. You get what I'm saying? Yeah, I think the arguments against it is just a feeling. And it's like, I think people are like, you're not dealing with [00:14:44] the corporate power in this equation in the same way that you're dealing with the regulatory bodies. Yeah. And that's what I think people are pissed off about. It's like, yeah, but that corporate those corporate interests, boy, [00:15:00] they will gum up all kinds of works for us normal working people. And there's a feeling that, you know, he saves his ire for the regulatory kind of folks and doesn't address the corporate interests, which, you know, again, if you if you're a, if you have like a standing assumption [00:15:17] that Ezra Klein is kind of like neoliberal scum, I'm I'm not completely against you. I just think that he's gotten better on that stuff than he was, say, during the first Obama administration. Oh, I totally agree with you on that. [00:15:33] You know, I just think you can critique where he falls short, and I agree with that critique. I think that the corporate influence is an important thing to tackle. However, don't throw the baby out with the bathwater, because what he's saying [00:15:49] about the exploitation, exploitation of these regulations is accurate. And I think that for whatever reason, the left has, like generally rejected that when it's just demonstrably true. And he's he gives specific examples of it in his book [00:16:05] that bolster the argument he's making. So, yeah, that's that's my take on it. I think this survey just doesn't frame the question effectively because it's either or for the respondents, and I don't think it needs to be either or. I think the two sides actually have to work together in order to accomplish [00:16:22] what we're trying to accomplish. Every time you ring the bell below, an angel gets its wings. Totally not true, but it does keep you updated on our live shows.