Great review, thank you. I found Klein's "Why We're Polarized" in a similar vein: An insightful look at the history and factors that led to the current state, but not much on offer vis-a-vis practical solutions.
Such books, and Andreesen's original abundance essay, are in my mind a form of intellectual cotton candy. They talk about something important and you feel like they're contributing to an understanding of the problem. But they never confront the *real* problems which have to do with execution and tradeoffs. As a reader you get to feel good – progress is being made! – but it's all just cotton candy.
Thanks for the comment! (I haven't read Why We're Polarized but it sounds like it has some similar issues.) "Intellectual cotton candy" is exactly it -- as I read "Abundance" I found the vision immediately compelling, but the longer I read the less I was sure about what Klein and Thompson's policy vision was, or if one could even be detected amid all the generalizations.
Marc Andreesen is a hypocrite so a book completely unrelated to him is bad, I guess, makes sense in someone's mind who isn't interested in grappling with logic or facts at any level.
Also this is one of the most patently absurd things I've ever read:
> Seen differently, homeowner households — who, it should be noted, comprise two-thirds of all Americans, a very large interest group indeed — would be the victims of proposed new homebuilding policies that would decimate by far the largest single source of their wealth1 in favor of a minoritarian interest group (current non-homeowners).
As I said in the review, I agree with Klein and Thompson on housing and thought that section was the strongest part of the book. That doesn't change the fact that homeowner-occupied housing comprises two-thirds of Americans so if you find their provincialism distasteful (as do I), you're the one in the minority, not them.
I'd like to see a geographical breakdown of that wealth. I suspect that most Black homeowners already live in areas with relatively lax regulation. After all, the state with the largest Black population by total numbers is Texas. By percentage it's Mississippi.
Ergo, I don't think loosening regulations in Palo Alto or San Diego or Manhattan carries as much moral valence.
That's not a political voting bloc, it's just a random demographic characteristic. Some of those people voted for Trump, some for Harris. Some are more NIMBY, some are less. It's not clear that being against housing is even always in their financial interests, but even if it is, people vote against their own narrow financial interest all the time. It's just not an interesting point *at all*, and reveals you know very little about how anything works.
Setting aside all that, housing issues are typically local and those numbers vary dramatically by state / district, etc. So on a pure math point, the total numbers are completely irrelevant. So even if it was an interesting point, it's still wrong. But again, it's not.
That's again quite false. In New York city for instance, and in many cities in the country, zoning really became a thing in the 1910s-1920s. Which is a historic low point for home ownership in the united states. So the causal effect did not at all happen how you're saying. It's not like a big voting bloc wielded their power against a minority.
Great review, thank you. I found Klein's "Why We're Polarized" in a similar vein: An insightful look at the history and factors that led to the current state, but not much on offer vis-a-vis practical solutions.
Such books, and Andreesen's original abundance essay, are in my mind a form of intellectual cotton candy. They talk about something important and you feel like they're contributing to an understanding of the problem. But they never confront the *real* problems which have to do with execution and tradeoffs. As a reader you get to feel good – progress is being made! – but it's all just cotton candy.
I suppose at least it sells books.
Thanks for the comment! (I haven't read Why We're Polarized but it sounds like it has some similar issues.) "Intellectual cotton candy" is exactly it -- as I read "Abundance" I found the vision immediately compelling, but the longer I read the less I was sure about what Klein and Thompson's policy vision was, or if one could even be detected amid all the generalizations.
Marc Andreesen is a hypocrite so a book completely unrelated to him is bad, I guess, makes sense in someone's mind who isn't interested in grappling with logic or facts at any level.
Also this is one of the most patently absurd things I've ever read:
> Seen differently, homeowner households — who, it should be noted, comprise two-thirds of all Americans, a very large interest group indeed — would be the victims of proposed new homebuilding policies that would decimate by far the largest single source of their wealth1 in favor of a minoritarian interest group (current non-homeowners).
Don't quit your day job!
As I said in the review, I agree with Klein and Thompson on housing and thought that section was the strongest part of the book. That doesn't change the fact that homeowner-occupied housing comprises two-thirds of Americans so if you find their provincialism distasteful (as do I), you're the one in the minority, not them.
I'd like to see a geographical breakdown of that wealth. I suspect that most Black homeowners already live in areas with relatively lax regulation. After all, the state with the largest Black population by total numbers is Texas. By percentage it's Mississippi.
Ergo, I don't think loosening regulations in Palo Alto or San Diego or Manhattan carries as much moral valence.
That's not a political voting bloc, it's just a random demographic characteristic. Some of those people voted for Trump, some for Harris. Some are more NIMBY, some are less. It's not clear that being against housing is even always in their financial interests, but even if it is, people vote against their own narrow financial interest all the time. It's just not an interesting point *at all*, and reveals you know very little about how anything works.
Setting aside all that, housing issues are typically local and those numbers vary dramatically by state / district, etc. So on a pure math point, the total numbers are completely irrelevant. So even if it was an interesting point, it's still wrong. But again, it's not.
Being a homeowner is just about the opposite of a random demographic characteristic. If it were, we wouldn't have the zoning regulations we have.
That's again quite false. In New York city for instance, and in many cities in the country, zoning really became a thing in the 1910s-1920s. Which is a historic low point for home ownership in the united states. So the causal effect did not at all happen how you're saying. It's not like a big voting bloc wielded their power against a minority.