Funded by tech elites, the "abundance" movement uses appealing goals like building more housing to mask a broader deregulatory agenda. This agenda likely prioritizes the profits of its billionaire backers over public protections for the economically vulnerable.
Related Insights
While the public focuses on AI's potential, a small group of tech leaders is using the current unregulated environment to amass unprecedented power and wealth. The federal government is even blocking state-level regulations, ensuring these few individuals gain extraordinary control.
Overly complex building regulations result in regulatory capture. Only large, well-connected developers can navigate the system, creating a moat that stifles competition from smaller innovators and keeps prices artificially high for consumers.
The narrative that new financial products are "innovative" is often used to argue against regulation, echoing the same rhetoric that led to the 2008 crisis. This skepticism towards "innovation speak" is crucial as Silicon Valley's language infiltrates finance.
After temporary alliances like 'Red and Tech vs. Blue', the next major political shift will unite the establishment left and right against the tech industry. Blues resent tech's capitalists, Reds resent its immigrants, and the political center blames it for societal ills. This will create a powerful, unified front aiming to curtail tech's influence and wealth.
Housing scarcity is a bottom-up cycle where homeowners' financial incentive is to protect their property value (NIMBYism). They then vote for politicians who enact restrictive building policies, turning personal financial interests into systemic regulatory bottlenecks.
We have had housing technology for 10,000 years, yet have made it artificially scarce through regulation. This engineered scarcity prevents young people from starting families, directly causing the crash in birth rates that poses an existential threat to Western civilization.
Lawyers often act as "handmaidens of the rich," enabling wealthy individuals and communities to use the legal system to block public good projects like mass transit or affordable housing. This subverts the public interest and creates a society that functions well for the wealthy but fails the majority.
As articulated by Donald Trump, the political goals of making housing affordable (increasing supply) and protecting existing home values are in direct conflict. Since homeowners are a massive voting bloc, politicians avoid policies that would lower prices, like deregulation, creating a permanent affordability crisis.
Homeowners and local governments block new development, creating artificial scarcity that drives up prices, similar to how luxury brands like LVMH restrict supply to increase value. This "LVMH-ing" of housing makes it unaffordable for younger generations and limits economic mobility.
The intense state interest in regulating tech like crypto and AI is a response to the tech sector's rise to a power level that challenges the state. The public narrative is safety, but the underlying motivation is maintaining control over money, speech, and ultimately, the population.
