Enjoy some sweet nostalgia:

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by History Cool Kids (@historycoolkids)

Full letter here.

NickS writes: I don't know how many people at unfogged have read the new book by Ezra Klein /Derek Thompson -- Abundance. I keep wanting to write something about it, but my take is, essentially, that it's worth reading, but I found it frustratingly unambitious -- it seems purely concerned with being "directionally correct" without trying to examine the questions in much depth. I'm sure that was a deliberate tactical decision; the book is intended to spark discussion, and it seems to be working.

Here are a handful of good responses that I've seen.

David Karpf does a good job of highlighting the strengths and weaknesses of the book:

Thankfully, there is more to the thesis than that. And the added nuance is important, because an oversimplified version of the Abundance argument can sound a lot like the old corporation-friendly, pro-growth, yes-to-everything critique of environmentalism that I see rebranded as new every five years or so. Klein and Thompson are, I think, making a more interesting argument than many of their predecessors in the lets-just-grow-our-way-to-utopia genre.

I'd go so far as to say that they are taking a swing at articulating a new governing philosophy that might at long last replace the decaying corpse of neoliberalism.

The neoliberal project insists (1) we can grow our way to paradise and (2) governments should stay out of the way and let the magic of the marketplace work out the details.

By contrast, Klein and Thompson are pretty firmly in favor of government intervention and industrial policy. They aren't just saying "growth is good and we should all cheer for developers!" They are instead saying something more along the lines of, if the government thinks something - housing, clean energy, etc - is a priority, then the government should proactively support that goal. Put money behind it. Don't leave everything to the "will of the markets." And, oh yeah, if the government wants to build high-speed rail or housing (etc etc) then the government should get out of its own damn way and make it can actually fulfill those promises.

DSquared has been doing excellent work trying to sketch out some of the difficulties involved. For example:

• The permissioning authorities have restricted capacity in terms of the information inputs they can handle.
• This means that their decisions are made in a judicial/adversarial form, delivering a yes/no decision on a completed draft planning consent
• Partly for reasons of capacity, and partly for reasons of legal propriety and the need to avoid the appearance of prejudgement, they are not set up to enter into detailed conversations in the interim or to comment on hypotheticals.
• Their main sources of information are pre-processed reports, which are assembled by the developers from commissioned works of professional services firms.

...

• The business model of the professional and legal services industry tends to constantly expand the risk surface.
• Consultancy firms work by creating productised generic solutions and then marketing them.
• There is a common community of practice, including developers, consultants and specialist lawyers. Law firms act as vectors of communication through this system, spreading knowledge of the latest developments.
• It is impossible to advertise the solution without "advertising the problem". As legal precedents are set or technology advances, developers' risk aversion always inclines them to commission more work.

• Professional services firms have, by an order of magnitude, more information-handling capacity than other parts of the system.
• In other words, the part of the system which generates complexity is much larger than any of the parts which are meant to deal with it.
• No other part of the system is reliably in a position to gainsay a professional report, other than by commissioning another professional report.
• This feeds back to the initial problem of missing capacity at the centre of the permissioning system, as it ensures that the complexity of planning applications is so large that the decision making bodies cannot operate other than on a judicial/adversarial model.

I also recommend Brink Lindsay's post (though it can be frustrating at moments) saying, essentially, "We [at the Niskanen Center] were right all along, and you can see that in Abundance" --

He is a little too credulous to the stories of dysfunction, but I also think he's correct to point to that work as a related project.

Niskanen addresses other, unrelated issues as well, but there is considerable overlap between our work and Klein and Thompson's abundance agenda. Our state capacity initiative seeks to improve the government's ability to implement policy and deliver results across the board. Our climate team focuses on expediting the buildout of transmission infrastructure that connects places where the sun shines and the wind blows to the places where people live -- a challenge that requires a frontal assault on vetocrats and procedure fetishists. Our social policy team advocates policies for unlocking abundance in housing and healthcare.

Niskanen's conception of the politics of the abundance agenda differs from Klein and Thompson's, but I believe the two approaches are entirely complementary. Klein and Thompson are a pair of progressives who are addressing fellow progressives and offering a new paradigm for center-left politics. At Niskanen, on the other hand, we try to transcend political and ideological divisions: we develop policies that can appeal to (at least some) progressives for progressive reasons and (at least some) conservatives for conservative reasons. It is inherently unpredictable when and from what source political demand for our supply of ideas might arise, so we don't prejudge the issue: we happily peddle our wares to all comers. As far as the various elements of the abundance agenda are concerned, progress is going to require a whole herd of progressive oxen to be gored -- especially when it comes to rethinking environmental review and blasting away decades of accumulated red tape throughout government. An abundance agenda that carries the day is going to have to rely on bipartisan support. (I'll just note here, though I think it goes without saying, that prospects for an ultimately successful abundance movement are contingent upon eventually moving past the evil and destructive spell of Donald Trump.)

Heebie's take: I'm only through the first link, but it's really, really good. There's a lot of pull quotes that I nodded along to, but I think I'll save them for the comments.

Chill writes: In my news bubble, if something positive for Ukraine in the war happens, I'll hear it, and if things go bad I won't know. I know about Trump's withdrawal of aid, and I don't hear news from the front so I figure things must be bad. Yesterday, I read Farley over at LGM extensively excerpting Michael Kofman (LGM link, original Kofman is behind a New York Magazine wall). What hit me hardest were Farleys comments at the end where he says Ukraine is drawing dead and will never be able to regain the territory Russia has taken. If true, that's grimmer than I had thought. I still have a lot of questions. In the short term, how long does Ukraine keep fighting? How well can Europe prop them up? Is there a ceasefire? Is there any scenario in which negotiating with Russia makes sense for Ukraine or do they just fight until the last man falls? In the medium-term, if Ukraine loses the war, what does that look like? (Ugh, this is when I think my news bubble keeping the bad stuff from me is good for my mental health). And I guess in the long term, if there's some negotiated piece that leaves Ukraine with some sovereignty, how long until Russia launches a third war of conquest, and what can Europe do to forestall that?

Heebie's take: Yes, how/what?