I think this article captures the sentiment in the US much better than I could have stated. It was clear to me in 2016 that it was an establishment/anti-establishment election. People have been...
I think this article captures the sentiment in the US much better than I could have stated. It was clear to me in 2016 that it was an establishment/anti-establishment election. People have been upset at the status quo for a long time - you merely need to look at approval ratings for congress and contrast them to approval ratings for other things like traffic jams or cockroaches. It's clear that people want something different, and I think that's a reflection of the near total gridlock that's existed practically everywhere and the lack of follow-through widely spread throughout government. Framing it as broken government and in particular, broken abundance I think is a smart way to rebrand progressiveness in a way that isn't necessarily left leaning, because political polarization is at an all-time high and single party issues aren't going to fly in the current government.
Yeah, I feel like this makes it clear in ways that were difficult for me to articulate: We are being nailed to a cross a cross of artificial scarcity. I will be doing a lot of reading on this...
Yeah, I feel like this makes it clear in ways that were difficult for me to articulate: We are being nailed to a cross a cross of artificial scarcity.
I will be doing a lot of reading on this "Abundancy" movement, because it feels like they're really on to something here.
Who doesn't want these things? I'm asking a serious question. Is there a class of people that would disagree with any or all of the above? Because the article seems to advocate for the creation of...
What do we want to be Abundant in society?
We want abundant housing, such that fewer people are rent-burdened and more people can afford to move to areas with economic opportunity.
We want abundant clean energy, so we can avert climate change while increasing quality of life—everything from reduced electricity bills to enabling desalination, which could get us to abundant water.
We want abundant good education, such that opportunity exists for every kid, regardless of birth zip code.
We want abundant good jobs, such that people are able to provide for their families and feel dignity and security.
Fundamentally we want to make it easier for regular people to build good lives for themselves and their children, and we think we can do it by making the things above, and many other things in society, Abundant.
Who doesn't want these things?
I'm asking a serious question. Is there a class of people that would disagree with any or all of the above? Because the article seems to advocate for the creation of sub-factions within the political parties that emphasize these things over anything else. But, I have a hard time believing that these desires are not already at the forefront of pretty much everybody.
Have you heard about goal-based vs. strategy-based decision making? In business, sometimes people will say something like "We need to run an advertising campaign." What they actually want is to...
Have you heard about goal-based vs. strategy-based decision making? In business, sometimes people will say something like "We need to run an advertising campaign." What they actually want is to run an advertising campaign so as to increase public awareness of their business so as to increase sales so as to increase revenue. But they'll become attached to a given strategy rather than a given goal. Even if running that advertising campaign isn't the right way to raise revenue, people get attached to the strategy they like. Two people in a business can have the same goal and yet engage in incredible fights over the right strategy to meet that goal.
This is the problem. Everyone can like the goal, but the strategies will differ. The "clean energy" one is a great example. Current methods of energy generation involve resource extraction from certain regions that have dedicated large portions of their economy to extracting that resource. Clean energy is good for everyone else, and even the people in that region may benefit, but in the meantime everyone in the dirty energy business is losing their jobs. The goal is good, the strategy is highly debated.
The unfortunate part of human nature is that there are literally people who rank themselves not by how much they have, but by seeing how much less other people have. Rather than appreciate what...
Who doesn't want these things?
The unfortunate part of capitalist-democracy human nature is that there are literally people who rank themselves not by how much they have, but by seeing how much less other people have. Rather than appreciate what they have, they have to convince themselves of their importance by seeing how many strata are below them. And who knows if they even worked to get there. It's kind of a positivity vs negativity kind of thing and, either way, it's incredibly materialistic.
That extends to housing and upwards mobility and has been a big component in both jobs and housing. It's been a big driver in the institutional racism that minorities have faced when home-buying, especially during the Jim Crow era when people found creative ways to disenfranchise those who were honestly trying to work their way upwards. In fact, bigots of all types were especially offended by upward mobility, and classist and economic bigots are the same way today. They believe that there are a finite number of seats available in the "middle class" or "upper-middle class" -- and the only real "upper class" are old money. New money are transients, members of a boom-and-bust class that come and go like shooting stars, while old money measures their time like the rise and fall of an empire.
Capitalist economists and their loyalists (see: CNBC) often talk about the importance of maintaining an unemployment rate of 4%. That's not because they believe that lower unemployment is impossible, but because they believe there is a Darwinian dogfight at the lowest echelon of society that's required for the churn of employment to continue. There needs to be a level of desperation in order for people to fight to succeed, to take the lowest-paying jobs at the worst hours, because as the classic anti-communist argument goes: who wants to become a doctor if they get paid the same as a bus driver? That people would want to pursue a career out of passion, or do things that might have a positive knock-on effect for others, is inconceivable to their world view. The cogs of the economy must always be working towards wealth-creation and altruism isn't a real variable to them.
About 2010, I read an op-ed article in passing. I think it was in Forbes. In the one-page article the author explained their views on why the book publishing industry should return to being privately financed by old money. It stuck with me as one of those moments where someone was "saying the crazy part aloud," and I think the argument was that back in the old days private entities financed "good" books and therefore knew how to choose quality for the masses. Oh, and publishers were just an obnoxious, money-stealing middle-man. Which means that the author wasn't really arguing for a democratic book publishing experience, even consolidated within a capitalist framework (which already chooses based on profitability/marketability), but something closer to a meritocracy with oversight by old money. At best. While I'm a bit of a book snob and encourage people to find objectively good books to enjoy, people also deserve to read what engages them and makes their brains feel warm and fuzzy. Imagine the mental gymnastics and joyless childhood required to believe that only the rich should be allowed to determine what books are published, then apply that to other aspects of life.
I think this article captures the sentiment in the US much better than I could have stated. It was clear to me in 2016 that it was an establishment/anti-establishment election. People have been upset at the status quo for a long time - you merely need to look at approval ratings for congress and contrast them to approval ratings for other things like traffic jams or cockroaches. It's clear that people want something different, and I think that's a reflection of the near total gridlock that's existed practically everywhere and the lack of follow-through widely spread throughout government. Framing it as broken government and in particular, broken abundance I think is a smart way to rebrand progressiveness in a way that isn't necessarily left leaning, because political polarization is at an all-time high and single party issues aren't going to fly in the current government.
Yeah, I feel like this makes it clear in ways that were difficult for me to articulate: We are being nailed to a cross a cross of artificial scarcity.
I will be doing a lot of reading on this "Abundancy" movement, because it feels like they're really on to something here.
Who doesn't want these things?
I'm asking a serious question. Is there a class of people that would disagree with any or all of the above? Because the article seems to advocate for the creation of sub-factions within the political parties that emphasize these things over anything else. But, I have a hard time believing that these desires are not already at the forefront of pretty much everybody.
Housing: nimbys
Clean Energy: oil lobby
Education: religious fundamentalists
Good Jobs: anti-labor
Have you heard about goal-based vs. strategy-based decision making? In business, sometimes people will say something like "We need to run an advertising campaign." What they actually want is to run an advertising campaign so as to increase public awareness of their business so as to increase sales so as to increase revenue. But they'll become attached to a given strategy rather than a given goal. Even if running that advertising campaign isn't the right way to raise revenue, people get attached to the strategy they like. Two people in a business can have the same goal and yet engage in incredible fights over the right strategy to meet that goal.
This is the problem. Everyone can like the goal, but the strategies will differ. The "clean energy" one is a great example. Current methods of energy generation involve resource extraction from certain regions that have dedicated large portions of their economy to extracting that resource. Clean energy is good for everyone else, and even the people in that region may benefit, but in the meantime everyone in the dirty energy business is losing their jobs. The goal is good, the strategy is highly debated.
The unfortunate part of
capitalist-democracyhuman nature is that there are literally people who rank themselves not by how much they have, but by seeing how much less other people have. Rather than appreciate what they have, they have to convince themselves of their importance by seeing how many strata are below them. And who knows if they even worked to get there. It's kind of a positivity vs negativity kind of thing and, either way, it's incredibly materialistic.That extends to housing and upwards mobility and has been a big component in both jobs and housing. It's been a big driver in the institutional racism that minorities have faced when home-buying, especially during the Jim Crow era when people found creative ways to disenfranchise those who were honestly trying to work their way upwards. In fact, bigots of all types were especially offended by upward mobility, and classist and economic bigots are the same way today. They believe that there are a finite number of seats available in the "middle class" or "upper-middle class" -- and the only real "upper class" are old money. New money are transients, members of a boom-and-bust class that come and go like shooting stars, while old money measures their time like the rise and fall of an empire.
Capitalist economists and their loyalists (see: CNBC) often talk about the importance of maintaining an unemployment rate of 4%. That's not because they believe that lower unemployment is impossible, but because they believe there is a Darwinian dogfight at the lowest echelon of society that's required for the churn of employment to continue. There needs to be a level of desperation in order for people to fight to succeed, to take the lowest-paying jobs at the worst hours, because as the classic anti-communist argument goes: who wants to become a doctor if they get paid the same as a bus driver? That people would want to pursue a career out of passion, or do things that might have a positive knock-on effect for others, is inconceivable to their world view. The cogs of the economy must always be working towards wealth-creation and altruism isn't a real variable to them.
About 2010, I read an op-ed article in passing. I think it was in Forbes. In the one-page article the author explained their views on why the book publishing industry should return to being privately financed by old money. It stuck with me as one of those moments where someone was "saying the crazy part aloud," and I think the argument was that back in the old days private entities financed "good" books and therefore knew how to choose quality for the masses. Oh, and publishers were just an obnoxious, money-stealing middle-man. Which means that the author wasn't really arguing for a democratic book publishing experience, even consolidated within a capitalist framework (which already chooses based on profitability/marketability), but something closer to a meritocracy with oversight by old money. At best. While I'm a bit of a book snob and encourage people to find objectively good books to enjoy, people also deserve to read what engages them and makes their brains feel warm and fuzzy. Imagine the mental gymnastics and joyless childhood required to believe that only the rich should be allowed to determine what books are published, then apply that to other aspects of life.