I didn't know that Zohran Mamdani is so charismatic, that he's the son of Mira Nair, his father an Indian Muslim and that they gave Zohran the middle name after Kwame Nkrumah.
New York would be so cool if you could somehow vote him in lol
The Majority Report with Sam Seder Thread
- Thread starter mitter
- Start date
I didn't know that Zohran Mamdani is so charismatic, that he's the son of Mira Nair, his father an Indian Muslim and that they gave Zohran the middle name after Kwame Nkrumah.
New York would be so cool if you could somehow vote him in lol
Emma’s father is a Partner at Wilmer Hale 
Both her parents are/were big time lawyers. I believe her sister is at top tier firm as well. It's why I feel Emma over compensates in her liberal ideology.Emma’s father is a Partner at Wilmer Hale
I feel like the majority report joked because some house in Emma's family was used for some period piece movie and Emma has a cameo in it.
So shes basically in her rebellion phase of white girl lifeBoth her parents are/were big time lawyers. I believe her sister is at top tier firm as well. It's why I feel Emma over compensates in her liberal ideology.
I feel like the majority report joked because some house in Emma's family was used for some period piece movie and Emma has a cameo in it.
So shes basically in her rebellion phase of white girl life
She’s on the Kasparian speed run and she doesn’t even know itBoth her parents are/were big time lawyers. I believe her sister is at top tier firm as well. It's why I feel Emma over compensates in her liberal ideology.
I feel like the majority report joked because some house in Emma's family was used for some period piece movie and Emma has a cameo in it.
You defend transgender folks you get accused of being an overcompensating liberal and compared to ana who never had an ideologyShe’s on the Kasparian speed run and she doesn’t even know it
storyteller
Veteran
Overcoming Cuomo's name recognition is gonna be tough. Still, I've been pleasantly surprised at Zohran pushing past the batch of other lefties who threw their names in and his ability to hit fundraising targets. It's an uphill battle, but you never know
storyteller
Veteran
They separated out the interview that details the flaws and concerns over the Abundance Agenda push.
Cuomo unfortunately is going to win due to name recognition and low informational voters that don't understand that NYS fall off is connected to cuomoOvercoming Cuomo's name recognition is gonna be tough. Still, I've been pleasantly surprised at Zohran pushing past the batch of other lefties who threw their names in and his ability to hit fundraising targets. It's an uphill battle, but you never know
Its still bad faith IMO.
Frankly they’re more afraid of developers making money than making shyt. It’s this weird anti-capitalist nonsense that avoids the issue at hand.
storyteller
Veteran
It's not bad faith just because they disagree with your worldview. Particularly when virtually every critic of Abundance points out that it has some merit, but is being oversold. Even the authors accept the critiques from these people and concede some of their points. This whole piece is worth a read, but my main point for sharing (beyond showing another example of how this Abundance thing isn't a novel idea, but used to come from Republicans and Libertarians), is that David Dayen and Derek Thompson openly debate the merits of the topic and concede points to each other.
The Last Abundance Agenda
In the 1980s, Wall Street vowed to make housing more affordable through deregulation of housing finance. The result was the 2008 crisis.
prospect.org
I just read this ironically. Again…he’s more focused on financial regulation not DEVELOPMENT regulation of lot sizes, zoning, parking minimums, environmental reviews etc. Dayen is more focused on regulating financiers… not building shyt. He has no solutions to build shyt only to latch onto his bailiwick of corporate monopolies and centralized power. People don’t give a fukk any more. They want more housing thats cheaper and more attainable in areas they want to live in.It's not bad faith just because they disagree with your worldview. Particularly when virtually every critic of Abundance points out that it has some merit, but is being oversold. Even the authors accept the critiques from these people and concede some of their points. This whole piece is worth a read, but my main point for sharing (beyond showing another example of how this Abundance thing isn't a novel idea, but used to come from Republicans and Libertarians), is that David Dayen and Derek Thompson openly debate the merits of the topic and concede points to each other.
The Last Abundance Agenda
In the 1980s, Wall Street vowed to make housing more affordable through deregulation of housing finance. The result was the 2008 crisis.
Notice, Dayen only mentions single family homes. He doesn’t mention the recent incentives for apartments and condos that have rapidly added density to urban cores.
NONE of these critiques are reformed focused and they are obstacles to progress when their own niche views have failed.
Letting developers make more money is preferable to nothing being built. This magical idea that the US system is gonna just flip a switch on government housing is more far fetched than it is for loosening up rules for builders to build with fewer restrictions of contracting limitations and other mandates.
I absolutely disagree with the bolded, any expansion of housing should be planned with restrictions. In fact if we had more restrictions we wouldn't be where we are today. Sprawl and wasted space is why we are here today, so many city town centers are no longer walkable due to towns and cities getting rid of limitations that allowed sprawl and space to get out of control. We don't need an "expansion" of the housing market we need a reorganization of the housing market. We need less cities built like Florida cities and Houston and more built like nyc. There needs to be more restrictions on developers it shouldn't be about making much money as possible. This is why housing should be a government solution not private
storyteller
Veteran
This kinda gets to the heart of the problem. This is just a Libertarian argument if you can't acknowledge that there is risk that comes with deregulation. He's using the Great Recession and the housing deregulation leading up to it as an example of risks.
He quite literally acknowledges that there are places where deregulation can help open up "choke points" but isn't limiting his solutions to deregulation because that's failed before since it didn't do enough to shield purchasers from profit motives here:
The Klein-Thompson view is that Democrats clogged the building channel with unnecessary or just burdensome rules. My view is that powerful forces profit off choke points and want them to remain. Joe Weisenthal had a particularly insightful explanation of this dynamic, noting that “any impulse to abundantly build out less profitable lines of business undoubtedly strikes at the heart of how American capitalism works.” Even in housing this is true, as homebuilder cartels have been building less and making more money by hoarding land.
These viewpoints can be complementary, but only with open eyes. If we want to build to productive ends, building power to take down finance and monopoly is the best way to make that happen. The Biden administration’s attempt to do that was uneven and too neglectful of the short term, but directionally correct.
I'm italicizing a key point here. These People aren't rejecting the abundance agenda. They're saying not to slip into Libertarian levels with this shyt. "Build, Baby, Build" without a critique of power is literally the Cato Institute shyt.
See, this is where you seem to be chasing a fight instead of reading with any kind of open mind. I'm quoting Dayen's conclusion that Abundance and Anti-monopoly strategies can be married for a more robust solution, and you say there's no reform focus and that he's laying out "obstacles to progress."
Warning not to go full Libertarian with this shyt isn't the same as abandoning the concept altogether. Especially when he gives a very real example of the dangers of Deregulation that one of the literal authors of the Abundance Agenda acknowledged.
Ehhh what? That article is focused on the risks of unfettered Deregulation from a historical context. It's not talking about magical government housing, you're just throwing out a strawman. To quote Dayen:
Substituting that with a lens that simply preferences action is dangerous, precisely because what we call deregulation really just shifts regulation (that is, the rules of how markets operate) from government to private hands. During the housing bubble, bankers structured the market to their own ends, and it resulted in catastrophe.
storyteller
Veteran
That's more aligned to Ben Burgis than David Dayen imo. I'm sure his prescriptions would make some heads explode
We Need a World Without Landlords
Recent battles over eviction moratoriums and homeless encampments have shown the depressing limits of our political horizons. We need to envision a radically different system that guarantees everyone the right to decent, stable housing.
jacobin.com
