Good to read a contribution to the UnPopulist that attempts to explore themes that could possibly unify the two parties in some common purpose. The only thing I would disagree with is the characterization of the GOP as “anti-abundance” when much of the right’s critique of the left, and much of their agenda, addresses what the left has “ignored.”
Johnson writes "It’s not a partisan project to want people to be better off, to have more and improved goods, and richer lives. Everyone wants high economic growth. Everyone wants cheaper housing. Everyone wants better infrastructure. "
Really? If this is true, then why do the problems you are writing about exist? I think it the very *need* for a Progress agenda is strong evidence that this is NOT so.
After all, what is the consequence of not enough in a market economy? Higher prices. Is this a problem for elites who have seen their share of income rise with time? No. Relative to the increase in top 1% income levels, college, health care and housing are actually *cheaper* for them than they were fifty years ago.
The top 1% are evenly split between the two parties. They and top-decile folks fill all of the top positions in finance, business, government, and academia/media and so run all of the most important societal institutions. A world in which more and more people get what they have is a world is a world in which their elevated positions are being lowered.
A program that tries to achieve this is not something I should expect them to be enthusiastic about, and they run things. I would expect such a program to experience very tough going.
You're quite close to the actual problem which I like to call the Janissary Problem
Imagine there's a reform that will make literally everyone in the community better off. But to do so, you have to remove a privilege from a small group that currently gets right of first pick in the scarce society. And that group has power to say "no". They'll be better off if your plan works, but risk aversion tells them they'd rather be secure having first pick of a scarce stockpile, than gamble that privilege for a bigger stockpile. The Janissaries of the Ottoman Empire infamously opposed many such reforms, and had veto power over the government. So the Ottoman Empire never modernized, it collapsed, and the Janissaries lost everything anyway.
People aren't rational. They're risk-averse hoarders.
The Democratic Party is beholden to a class of voters who is paranoid that any new construction of any kind is going to literally bring back Kowloon style megaslums unless every single overly convoluted process it currently goes through is followed to the letter. They would be better off if we legalized building more housing, but they're paranoid they won't be. To say nothing of homeowners who don't want to see their home values go down even if the cheaper more abundant services will make their lives better. Those aren't megacorporations and shareholders protecting the bottom line. They're your mom and your dad.
The Republican Party is similarly beholden to a class of voters which is terrified of losing relative cultural authority, and so is entirely happy to destroy or challenge plentitude in order to achieve social dominance. They'd rather we're all poor churchgoing conservatives than rich atheist liberals.
Neither party can engage in reform because the people who control the party, regular people like you and me, don't want the parties we control to reform. We don't want to lose our privileged status within them.
You write "To say nothing of homeowners who don't want to see their home values go down even if the cheaper more abundant services will make their lives better. "
This is a reality for things that cause local value to go down, while values outside do not. If this happens the money they get for their home won't buy a replacement homes so they are stuck, tying up more home than they need.
I would be more sympathetic to the supply and demand argument for housing costs if the Case Shiller index did not move sustainably out of its century-long trading range at the same time stock market values broke to unprecedented levels.
And I note that today's very high real estate values exist along with sky-high equity values and the phenomenon of crytpo, worthless virtual objects with extraordinary market valuations. These are obviously oceans of money in the hands of people with no material use for it, using it to bid up the prices of every kind of asset. Housing prices are sky-high all over the developed world. Even in China, prices are very high despite scads of unused housing.
Johnson writes “Standing in the way of this abundance agenda is a series of formidable obstacles: opposition from the NIMBY movement, regulatory barriers, and a preoccupation with culture war politics.”
You miss one of the key issues, shareholder primacy. Business has an alternative to making stuff to achieve their objective of shareholder value, they can buy their stock.
Good to read a contribution to the UnPopulist that attempts to explore themes that could possibly unify the two parties in some common purpose. The only thing I would disagree with is the characterization of the GOP as “anti-abundance” when much of the right’s critique of the left, and much of their agenda, addresses what the left has “ignored.”
Johnson writes "It’s not a partisan project to want people to be better off, to have more and improved goods, and richer lives. Everyone wants high economic growth. Everyone wants cheaper housing. Everyone wants better infrastructure. "
Really? If this is true, then why do the problems you are writing about exist? I think it the very *need* for a Progress agenda is strong evidence that this is NOT so.
After all, what is the consequence of not enough in a market economy? Higher prices. Is this a problem for elites who have seen their share of income rise with time? No. Relative to the increase in top 1% income levels, college, health care and housing are actually *cheaper* for them than they were fifty years ago.
The top 1% are evenly split between the two parties. They and top-decile folks fill all of the top positions in finance, business, government, and academia/media and so run all of the most important societal institutions. A world in which more and more people get what they have is a world is a world in which their elevated positions are being lowered.
A program that tries to achieve this is not something I should expect them to be enthusiastic about, and they run things. I would expect such a program to experience very tough going.
You're quite close to the actual problem which I like to call the Janissary Problem
Imagine there's a reform that will make literally everyone in the community better off. But to do so, you have to remove a privilege from a small group that currently gets right of first pick in the scarce society. And that group has power to say "no". They'll be better off if your plan works, but risk aversion tells them they'd rather be secure having first pick of a scarce stockpile, than gamble that privilege for a bigger stockpile. The Janissaries of the Ottoman Empire infamously opposed many such reforms, and had veto power over the government. So the Ottoman Empire never modernized, it collapsed, and the Janissaries lost everything anyway.
People aren't rational. They're risk-averse hoarders.
The Democratic Party is beholden to a class of voters who is paranoid that any new construction of any kind is going to literally bring back Kowloon style megaslums unless every single overly convoluted process it currently goes through is followed to the letter. They would be better off if we legalized building more housing, but they're paranoid they won't be. To say nothing of homeowners who don't want to see their home values go down even if the cheaper more abundant services will make their lives better. Those aren't megacorporations and shareholders protecting the bottom line. They're your mom and your dad.
The Republican Party is similarly beholden to a class of voters which is terrified of losing relative cultural authority, and so is entirely happy to destroy or challenge plentitude in order to achieve social dominance. They'd rather we're all poor churchgoing conservatives than rich atheist liberals.
Neither party can engage in reform because the people who control the party, regular people like you and me, don't want the parties we control to reform. We don't want to lose our privileged status within them.
You write "To say nothing of homeowners who don't want to see their home values go down even if the cheaper more abundant services will make their lives better. "
This is a reality for things that cause local value to go down, while values outside do not. If this happens the money they get for their home won't buy a replacement homes so they are stuck, tying up more home than they need.
I would be more sympathetic to the supply and demand argument for housing costs if the Case Shiller index did not move sustainably out of its century-long trading range at the same time stock market values broke to unprecedented levels.
https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F09c751df-fdf4-42dc-9992-6293afb57b10_629x286.gif
And I note that today's very high real estate values exist along with sky-high equity values and the phenomenon of crytpo, worthless virtual objects with extraordinary market valuations. These are obviously oceans of money in the hands of people with no material use for it, using it to bid up the prices of every kind of asset. Housing prices are sky-high all over the developed world. Even in China, prices are very high despite scads of unused housing.
"Make Abundance Great Again"
Johnson writes “Standing in the way of this abundance agenda is a series of formidable obstacles: opposition from the NIMBY movement, regulatory barriers, and a preoccupation with culture war politics.”
You miss one of the key issues, shareholder primacy. Business has an alternative to making stuff to achieve their objective of shareholder value, they can buy their stock.
https://mikealexander.substack.com/p/why-america-doesnt-build-things
Shareholder culture may also adversely affect innovation:
https://mikealexander.substack.com/p/why-progress-seems-stalled