83 Comments
User's avatar
Mommadillo's avatar

You nailed it with that strikethrough - “Abundance” is just “Trickle-down” with a fresh coat of paint.

Expand full comment
Joe Wrote's avatar

Thanks! Strikethrough is a vastly underrated formatting tool, in my opinion, especially for satire.

Expand full comment
Matt's avatar

You know you are out of touch when "removing NIMBY barriers to housing" equals Ronald Reagan.

Expand full comment
Mommadillo's avatar

Let me know how that works out for you.

Expand full comment
Matt's avatar

Let me know how the snarky, judgmental attitude has played for the progs.

Expand full comment
Mommadillo's avatar

I’ll lose the snarky judgmental attitude as soon as "removing NIMBY barriers to housing" is more than bullshit hot air.

Expand full comment
Matt's avatar

Tell that to the millions of people paying more in rent due to low house construction in blue states. Again, you are so, so out of touch.

Expand full comment
Mommadillo's avatar

I’m not arguing there’s a problem. I’m arguing that you useless lying fucks have no solutions either. You just want to funnel more money to people who are already wealthy.

Expand full comment
Lux's avatar

"To defeat the GOP, we must copy their policies! Wait, that can't be right..." It's the Democrat version of right wing libertarianism. The Dems are going to hand us 20 years of Trumpian Christian Nationalism with this id10cy

Expand full comment
Joe Wrote's avatar

I honestly can't believe they think this will work again.

Expand full comment
Lux's avatar

At some point, it becomes willful. They either know what they're doing and are doing it on purpose, or they're delusional and just keep doing the same nonsense over and over. Both of which are terrible. It's probably a mix of both

Expand full comment
Matt's avatar

Well identity politics, open borders, and blue states with crazy expensive housing certainly isn’t doing the trick.

Expand full comment
Matt's avatar

Except, progressive policies, as shown by EVERY poll, resulted in Trump winning again. When will you people take the L? Progs pushed open borders, gender nonsense, and crazy student loan forgiveness. The result was Trump winning.

And yet you people think the country wants... more of that?

Jesus Christ.

Expand full comment
Lux's avatar

Every poll? Are the polls in the room with us now? Because progressive voters told Biden and Harris to end support for Israel, and they didn't, and so they lost the progressive vote. They lost the Islamic vote because of it, which cost them Michigan. Harris courted Republicans, not progressives. She dumped Medicare for All as a policy, something that is wildly popular. She started backing off of trans rights. She went further and further right to try to get Republican votes. The Dem stance on Gaza cost them the election, and they knew it was going to, which is why she chased the GOP. The actual polls show broad support for progressive policies. The ballot initiatives that pass across the country typically favor better wages and abortion rights. And there is no "gender nonsense." There's just a bunch of bigoted MAGAts taking rights away from trans people. That's only a "problem" because it's a nice scary boogeyman they can use to trick idiots into voting for the interests of the rich. There is a big disconnect between the people elected and what the typical voter wants. And more Christian Nationalist buIIshit is not what a majority of people want. Please look at real data, and not the trash right wing think tanks pull together by misconstruing polls or asking loaded questions

Expand full comment
E2's avatar

For the record - Kamala Harris' position on Gaza was that there should be an immediate ceasefire, and that Palestinians should eventually have self-determination in the territories. Her opponent's position was that Netanyahu needed to go harder and "finish the job" - as a prelude to Palestinian-free resort development, we heard later.

Expand full comment
Matt's avatar
Apr 3Edited

You can tell how out of touch someone is based on how much they think "Gaza" influenced the election. Hint: 22 year old gender studies majors are not a huge voting bloc.

You seem to support men playing women's sports, also. You do know that 85%+ of the country does not, right? How exactly do you think you are gonna win?

Hilarious.

Please look at the top 20 issues voters cared about this election. Gaza is not on there bud. Get out of your echo chamber.

Expand full comment
Lux's avatar

God, this is sad to watch. Trying to demean and diminish the people who are outraged over a genocide is a pathetic attempt to validate your fallacious attempt at an argument. Plus, like I already said, losing the Muslim vote in Michigan cost them that state which is a key swing state.

Which non-Nazi politicians campaigned on trans women in sports? I already told you that Harris abandoned the trans community. The only people making trans people an issue is the MAGAts. It's entirely a distraction to keep their dups angry and voting for politicians who fuck over those same voters. Like the complete morons who believed Trump would and could lower egg prices, so they elected him and egg prices haven't improved and everything is about to get even more expensive for working people thanks to his tariffs. The head of the NCAA said that there are 10 trans athletes out of over 500,000 in the association. TEN. The only reason anyone is bent out of shape about trans athletes is because bigot mouthpieces have made it their entire personality. MAGAts think about gay sex and trans people's genitals more than actually gay and trans people.

The top 20 issues? You mean like in the Gallup poll conducted in Sep 2024 that had both the "situation in middle east between Israelis and Palestinians" (which 93% of respondents said was at least somewhat important) and "transgender rights" (which 63% said was at least somewhat important) in the top 20? Maybe get your head out of your ass and go actually look at data before saying stupid shit.

Here's that poll in case you'd like to start: https://news.gallup.com/poll/651719/economy-important-issue-2024-presidential-vote.aspx

Expand full comment
Matt's avatar

You are trying to say the **15th** most important topic cost them the election.

Are you joking?

Your arrogance and righteousness is nauseating. I bet you support student loan forgiveness too? And when plumbers in PA don't want higher taxes to pay for some kids gender studies degree, instead of asking why they don't, you call them racist.

Keep this up and the dems will never win.

Expand full comment
Lux's avatar

You said, "Please look at the top 20 issues voters cared about this election. Gaza is not on there bud."

Then moved your goalposts to "the 15th topic isn't important." Thanks for conceding via ignorance.

You clearly don't know how student loan interest works. So let me educate you before you move the goal posts again. Normal loans have a fixed term and charge interest only on the remaining principle. Like a mortgage. They create an amortization table that calculates the interest over the term of the loan and if you just pay it as is, you'll pay a fixed amount of interest over the life of the loan. Student loans aren't like that. They compound on their interest. So if I borrow $1000, and $10 of interest is added, and I pay $5, the next amount of interest calculated will be on $1005, not just the original $1000 like every other normal loan in existence, apart from credit cards, and student loans aren't rotating balances like credit cards. So people can borrow $30,000 to go to college, pay back $60,000 and still owe $40,000 because of the compounding interest. Loan forgiveness would wipe out that $40,000 because the loan has long since been paid. The taxpayers won't be paying anything. That's why it's called loan forgiveness, not loan payoff. It's fixing a problem that shouldn't be allowed to exist in the first place. But the loan companies pay propaganda mills to pump out lies, like what you're claiming, because those companies want to be able to keep charging people money long after the debt would have been paid on any normal loan.

It is hard to elect sane people (which the Dems aren't, but at least they're not all openly Nazi trash like the GOP) when idiots like yourself uncritically swallow the propaganda the rich pump out.

Expand full comment
Nels's avatar

Clinton did it, with great success.

Expand full comment
Jake Gless's avatar

Blows my mind that people take Ezra and Derek seriously. These guys scream passive income.

Expand full comment
Joe Wrote's avatar

That's what makes me so frustrated about this. These books are supposed to be unprescriptive so non-political audiences can enjoy them. That's fine, but pretending this is a rigorously theorized political strategy is outlandish.

Expand full comment
Jake Gless's avatar

It’s simply self-promotion.

Expand full comment
Schuyler Laparle's avatar

What a frustrating co-optation of the concept of "abundance". "Abundance" for the few and crumbs for the rest is not abundance.

Expand full comment
Nels's avatar

Blue states have more homeless people because rich liberals don't let houses be built. Meanwhile, Texas has an abundance agenda and regular people can actually afford houses. The whole reason they wrote the book is because everywhere liberals govern, poor people suffer.

Expand full comment
Sol's avatar

"But as the political winds changed faster than a Republican’s anti-choice stance once his mistress gets pregnant..."

Love it!

Expand full comment
Joe Wrote's avatar

lol, I was pretty proud of that!

Expand full comment
ymg's avatar

How about faster than every progressive ideal get abandoned in favor of supporting Hamas. That's pretty fast too.

Expand full comment
Zach Selzman's avatar

You make a lot of good points, I still think the book is interesting and outlines some key problems, but also agree that the theater or the tour itself is somewhat annoying.

Expand full comment
Joe Wrote's avatar

I don't inherently disagree. I'm sure bureaucracy can slow good governance. But as you said, the book tour is something else entirely.

Expand full comment
Truth Seeking Missile's avatar

They are just capitalists.

Expand full comment
Mommadillo's avatar

“Abundance” is just “trickle-down” with a fresh paint job. I can’t believe anyone’s still dumb enough to fall for it. The theory that what slops out of the trough while wealthy people gorge themselves will somehow be enough for the rest of us never worked and never will.

Expand full comment
Joe Wrote's avatar

I honestly couldn't believe how absurd their argument was. It's Reaganism 101.

Expand full comment
David's avatar

Absolutely love this. I’ve honestly become thoroughly disgusted with the Democratic party after Chuck Schumer’s appalling cowardice in the face of the regime. When are these fucking people going to realize the Clinton era is over? Nobody who matters actually gives a shit about “empowering entrepreneurship” anymore, because the only people who find that narrative compelling are already Republicans (and yes, I’m exaggerating, because the point is that the actual voting base for bullshit neoliberalism has shrunk to irrelevance).

These cowards and losers need to go. They stand for nothing, they’ve offered nothing, and they never miss an opportunity to spout lofty verbiage before predictably and reliably failing to do the right thing. The fuck with all of them.

Expand full comment
Joe Wrote's avatar

I couldn't agree more 🫡

Expand full comment
Cailean's avatar

I have government funded internet, its called Starlink. It's not that great and comes with a high moral cost, but it's the ONLY option in my area.

No landlines.

No traditional satellite.

No cell coverage.

Expand full comment
Joe Wrote's avatar

I suspect Starlink and internet companies aspiring to create a satellite option were the biggest players in slowing this process. As rural broadband is Starlink's business model, of course they're going to attack public alternatives!

Expand full comment
sari graham's avatar

Renaming the product/drug to hide how weak it has become. Learned that from The Wire.

Expand full comment
Joe Wrote's avatar

A great educational resource!

Expand full comment
Casein Point's avatar

I know this isn't the right lesson to take from your essay but I bet it must be a great life writing airport bestsellers

Expand full comment
Joe Wrote's avatar

Probably fantastic! It's all vibes, top to bottom.

Expand full comment
ymg's avatar

Hilarious. To be fair, if any one knows failed political campaigns and ideas it's socialists like you.

Expand full comment
Joe Wrote's avatar

Thanks! Always appreciate your support. ❤️

Expand full comment
ymg's avatar

No problem. I find it very entertaining how you are like a cartoon character who keeps stepping on that same rake over and over again. Of course, you do it while also repeating "true socialism has not been tried yet" each time you get whacked in the face.

But not to worry, the "progressive" movement's newly-minted alliance with super-regressive religio-fascist Islamist movement is a genius move that is bound to work out great for you. Just ask the Iranian labor and socialists from 1979. LOL.

Expand full comment
Joe Wrote's avatar

I don’t really think there is a “true” socialism or any ideology for that matter. And I’m pretty clear socialism has been implemented past and present, so I don’t think you’re actually reading what I write.

Expand full comment
Radek's avatar

"want to be clear — this is not a book review. I haven’t read Abundance, and I don’t plan to."

...proceeds to do a book review and acts like he read it

Expand full comment
Joeff's avatar

A billy goat may have a beard but that does not make him a rabbi.

Expand full comment
Tim Grimes's avatar

Joe: “I didn’t read the book and I don’t intend to read it”

**Proceeds to critique the book**

I don’t agree with everything in Abundance, but it has a lot of merits. They wrote a book that has some stuff missing, that doesn’t mean it contains their entire political worldview and nothing else can explain bad policy implementation. They should’ve included more positive ideas about increasing social welfare programs and Derek has said as much on some of his solo press tour interviews. Listen to Ezra Klein’s interview with Derek and they explain the weird rollout timing; it WAS supposed to be a political platform…for the 2024 presidential election. They released it later on purpose and added more to it. This is basically a repackaged Lever News critique of the book, maybe get some of your own ideas? I don’t like being in the position of defending Ezra Klein, he’s too much of a neoliberal elitist for my taste, but the book is good and has some ideas to pick up. Package this with an MMT economic advisor (Stephanie Kelton), add in a Social Wealth Fund (credit Matt Bruenig), and you have a platform for 2028.

Expand full comment
Joe Wrote's avatar

I critiqued their public statements about the book. It's fair to do so as long as you're clear about it, and I believe I was.

Expand full comment