Nato Powell

“Upzoning demolitions of rent controlled homes” isn’t even a sequence of words that makes sense?

I feel that one can make a decent argument that Anglophone democracies are weaker in multiple ways now than they were then, but otherwise I feel democracy is far stronger now than it was then. I think the biggest difference is in trajectory. Now the rising powers are likely to be less democratic.

🤞

If you said anything about human tolerance or allergenic properties, I missed it. Are we still sort of crossing our fingers that it doesn’t have some toxic or allergenic effect in humans, or do we have reasons for confidence that it’s likely to be a safe drug for at least some people?

I disagree with this, but thank you for giving your perspective on what abundance Democrats are! But how does this make the Venn diagram of abundance Dems and NIMBYs a circle?

I’m not sure why this is a reply to me; I broadly agree with your thread. Maybe I somehow gave an impression of my position that I didn’t intend?

It doesn’t mean the stereotype isn’t gendered.

Especially now that they can add multiple wrong words in for you without you even noticing. I’ve become ever more thankful for services that allow editing messages, because it’s become so much more necessary.

My understanding of abundance Democrats is Dems who are focused on pursuing policies that produce more goods and services (public and private) for most people, whereas non-abundance Dems tend to focus on preventing bad things from happening. Housing being a prime example where the approaches collide

I really feel like I have a totally different understanding of what “abundance Democrats” are from the other commenters in this portion of the thread.

Most of the mechanisms I’ve seen lauded by abundance Democrats have taken direct aim at the various ways wealthy landowners push development away to someone else’s backyard. Is there some major counter example I’m missing?

I mean, the Venn diagram of NIMBY and YISEBY really is a circle, but most of the mechanisms I’ve seen lauded by abundance Democrats has taken direct aim at the various ways wealthy landowners push development away to someone else’s backyard. Is there some major counter example I’m missing?

Huh? I think of the whole “abundance Democrats” movement to have come directly from left-YIMBYism.

And compared to the US or USSR, neither China nor India had much quality land per capita.

Huh? They easily had the highest per capita of any of them. Recall that Ukraine and the Caucuses were all part of the Soviet Union, which were very comparable to the top tier productive lands in the US, but adding all the additional second tier lands stretching north and east deep into the interior.

That is still in the future but probably could have been achieved years ago if the nuclear shutdowns hadn’t been pushed to the front of the line.

I caught myself continuing to argue pedantically but rather I should just congratulate Germany on making such good progress on coal. I would not have phased out nuclear while there were hydrocarbons still in use, but Germany is nevertheless making commendable progress and we should celebrate that.

Both because of genuine inequality growth and also a shift in what lifestyles are brought to our attention. I don’t have a way to even gut-estimate the factor contribution there because they interact with one-another. Regardless, I think the core progressive critique may be directionally correct.

I would assert that people judge how they’re doing on a relative basis, and that relative basis is mostly anchored in what they see *now*; memories of the past are hazy and (even more) narratively shaped. In relative terms, the median American might be doing appreciably worse now than in the past…

Legacy base load generation closures were going to happen due to renewables & etc. However, coal generation closures keep getting delayed because they were needed in the disappearance of nuclear generation. So, I feel it’s justified to say that Germany was replacing nuclear with coal.

It seems to me that coal has reduced but has not been eliminated, so the claim to having replaced both seems shaky.

I think the problem is that he seems to have always been like this to a significant extent. In responsible, intelligent adults, his current behavior would be a huge red flag for incipient dementia, but with Trump it’s really difficult to tell.

This is the spot where it’s traditional to tell you I won’t be watching because [some complaint about the network or whatever], correct? So that you are deeply chastened or something.

In case you haven’t noticed yet, the stream went out

White supremacy is affirmative action for the most unsupreme white people.

It’s sometimes difficult to tell when a left-NIMBY is earnestly being a useful idiot for landowners, and when they kinda know it’s a game that raises the value of the house they’re inheriting from their Boomer parents.

I went to Philz consistently back when they offered their “Philz bagel”. No great work of culinary art, but it was a reliably decent bagel with reliably decent toppings, and it really made Philz a comprehensive stop for me. Philz still has bagels but they and their toppings are meh now.

Having said that, I would love if you’re right and the establishment learns that recalls are poison.

It’s also going to be easier for the Diane Wilsey types to run their candidate. I also don’t think a “progressive” left-NIMBY is practically better than a YIMBY centrist, because being a refuge is useless if no one can afford to live here.

Backing a more progressive candidate against them during the regular election next year was what I would have thought.