Ezra Klein & Derek Thompson - Abundance Is the Key to Fixing America | Prof G Conversations
What this covers
This episode features a conversation with Ezra Klein, New York Times columnist and host of The Ezra Klein Show, and Derek Thompson, Atlantic staff writer, author, and host of the Plain English podcast.
Scott discusses with Ezra and Derek their new book, “Abundance,” which is all about how America learned to fail at abundance — and how the left can fix it by embracing growth, progress, and the messy trade-offs of governing.
Follow Ezra, @ezraklein. Follow Derek, @DKThomp.
00:00 Introdiction 01:34 In Abundance, you say right-wing populism thrives on scarcity. What does abundance look like? 03:34 Does the idea of abundance mean 'drill, baby, drill'? How does it shape our energy policy? 07:30 Is the real issue how wealth is concentrated in the hands of the top 1%? 11:21Can you give another example of how pro-growth values might change things? 16:39 Isn't the conservative agenda more aligned with an abundance mindset? 20:41 How has the scarcity mindset infected higher education, and what policy changes would you recommend to address it? 24:46 Does addressing wealth inequality simply come down to restoring a progressive tax policy? 36:02 Do tariffs go against the idea of an abundance culture? 45:56 What strategies should Democrats deploy to address economic issues and regain consistency in messaging? 54:12 How can we design policies that help young people build families with the economic support to make it possible?
Please support this channel by subscribing here: www.youtube.com/@TheProfGPod
Want more Prof G? Check out everything we're up to at https://profgmedia.com/
#scottgalloway #abundance #housingmarket #housing #ecnomics #housingcrisis #tech #energy #trump # #tariffs #investing #infrastructure #trumpadministration #economy #podcastshow #practice #profg
Source description (no synthesized summary yet).
Liberals must shift from scarcity-focused politics to an abundance agenda centered on building housing, energy, and institutions—solving affordability through supply expansion rather than redistribution, while abandoning NIMBY regulations that block construction in Democratic-governed cities.
- Democratic-governed cities with the worst housing crises block new construction through regulations despite claiming to prioritize affordability
- Technology and policy-driven supply expansion (solar down 90%, wind down 79%) solve problems better than sacrifice-based politics which elect authoritarians
- Tariffs and scarcity-based policies worsen affordability while preventing the supply-side solutions that could address housing, energy, and manufacturing challenges
This asset isn't compiled yet
You're seeing its claims, ranked. Compile it to build the argument threads, weight them, and check each claim against your library — the full view.
If we never invented solar, wind, or renewable energy sources, the only way to address greenhouse gas emissions would be to radically cut living standards for everyone using energy globally—making new clean energy technology essential to any progressive climate politics.
“Imagine a world where it just turned out we never invented a form of energy that didn't require burning fossil fuels, right? We figured out natural gas, we figured out oil and petroleum, we figured out coal, but we never invented a solar panel, we never figured out what to do with a wind turbine, didn't figure out hydropower or geothermal. You would have this I think politically impossible problem. Which is that the only way to do anything about greenhouse gas emissions would be to radically cut the living standards of functionally everybody who uses energy around the globe, right?”
The Trump administration announced tariffs of 25% on lumber from Canada and drywall from Mexico, two key inputs for housing, while claiming a mandate to address unaffordability—a contradictory policy that will raise housing costs for the very constituency concerned about affordability.
“The National Association of Home Builders came out with a message after the tariff announcement that said, 'This is going to be a catastrophe. Our inputs include lumber from Canada and drywall material from Mexico, and now we're going to increase the taxes on those inputs by 25%.' This is a president who understood his mandate, which was all about unaffordability in this country, to immediately raise the two key inputs of housing by 25%. It's complete effing madness.”
Americans spend a record amount of time alone and a record low amount of time in physical face-to-face contact; there's a life-cycle effect where teens have fewer friends, 20-somethings date less, 30-somethings are less likely to marry, and 40-somethings less likely to have children.
“I wrote a cover story for the Atlantic called The Antisocial Century, where I said that maybe the most important social problem facing this country is that Americans spend a record amount of time alone and a record low amount of time in physical face-to-face contact. And as I've continued to report out this story, one of the more interesting parts of it actually relates incredibly deeply to housing. If you take a look at sort of the life cycle of American aloneness, teens have fewer friends. Teens hang out with their friends less. 20-somethings date less. And then 30-somethings are less likely to get married. 40-somethings less likely now to have children.”
The book's core tributaries are housing and decarbonization—the U.S. cannot meet decarbonization goals without building solar, wind, and battery manufacturing facilities at a much faster pace than liberal governments currently allow.
“I think two of the core tributaries of the book are housing and decarbonization. Uh we are very, very worried about the absence of sufficient housing in the big, particularly the cities, although not only, that drive the American economy, and we're simply not going to meet decarbonization goals. I mean, you're probably at this point not going to meet them anyway, but you're not going to meet decarbonization goals if you can't build solar, wind, battery manufacturing facilities, and and other things at a much, much, much faster pace than we've seen so far, and that are frankly possible under the way liberal governments, including national Democratic governments, tend to create the rules for construction.”
Teens have fewer friends and hang out less, 20-somethings date less, 30-somethings are less likely to marry, and 40-somethings are less likely to have children—a lifecycle pattern of declining interpersonal connection.
“If you take a look at sort of the life cycle of American aloneness, teens have fewer friends. Teens hang out with their friends less. 20-somethings date less. And then 30-somethings are less likely to get married. 40-somethings less likely now to have children.”
Fertility rates have collapsed in even the most pro-natalist liberal countries (Sweden, Denmark) with great parental leave and egalitarian systems, suggesting policy alone cannot drive fertility and cultural dimensions matter deeply.
“You can have the most, from the liberal perspective, pronatal policy you can possibly imagine, right? That's Sweden, Denmark. Their fertility rate has collapsed, too. They're all their great parental leave and paid family leave and, you know, universal pre-K and, you know, egalitarian tax system, it didn't do it. They're down at 1.1. I don't know that we know, at least outside of policy interventions of a scale that nobody really wants to think about, what we could do that would dramatically change that.”
When Scott was at UCLA, the admissions rate was 76%; UC had an 'eligibility' system using a sliding scale where qualifying on test scores guaranteed admission to a UC campus like Santa Cruz. By contrast, modern elite universities reject 85%+ of applicants and celebrate this scarcity.
“For me, at UCLA, it was 76% when I applied... UC had a thing then called eligibility. And it was a sliding scale, but if you got above a 3.3 or above a 1,400 on your SATs or something in between that sliding scale, you were guaranteed admission to Riverside or Santa Cruz. Or UCI”
Texas and Republican-governed states like Georgia and Iowa are building the most renewable energy despite not prioritizing climate change, showing that market freedom without NIMBY politics produces more progressive outcomes than blue-state climate policies.
“Nonetheless, as you point out, you can't ignore the fact of outcomes. It is Texas that is building the most renewable and it is often places like Georgia and Iowa, not run by Democrats, but run often by Republicans who do not value climate change as a top order priority, that are building the most renewable energy. And that speaks to the fact that in some cases, if you allow a market to work without the interference of NIMBY politics, you sometimes, ironically, end up with more progressive outcomes.”
No elite college in the top 25 has been founded in the last 100 years except Chicago and Stanford, showing a century-long pause in institutional building despite continued population growth and social need.
“In fact, it's not just the UC system. I mean, name an elite college that has been founded in the last 100 years. I think two of the last ones that are in to the top 25 of any kind of US News & World Report ranking are things like Chicago and Stanford, which are over 100 years old. It's been a century that we've taken a timeout from building the kind of institutions that we used to spring up and pop up every 5 years. In the last half of the 19th century.”
Even Nordic countries with universal pre-K, generous parental leave, egalitarian tax systems (Sweden, Denmark) have fertility rates near 1.1 and equally collapsed, suggesting policy interventions alone don't solve falling fertility—cultural and technological factors (birth control, delayed windows) may be more important.
“You can have the most, from the liberal perspective, pronatal policy you can possibly imagine, right? That's Sweden, Denmark. Their fertility rate has collapsed, too. They're all their great parental leave and paid family leave and, you know, universal pre-K and, you know, egalitarian tax system, it didn't do it. They're down at 1.1. I don't know that we know, at least outside of policy interventions of a scale that nobody really wants to think about, what we could do that would dramatically change that. I think it's a much it's cultural, it's also technological in terms of, you know, birth control and fertility windows and and all the rest of it.”
The average UC tuition for all 7 years of undergrad and grad was $7,000 when Derek Thompson attended; now it is prohibitively expensive, exemplifying how higher education has become unaffordable despite California's historical status as providing free/cheap elite public education.
“It was 7,000 for all 7 years of undergrad and grad.”
US government research funding, German subsidies for solar, and Chinese subsidies for the solar industry have driven solar prices down 90% and wind prices down 79% over the past 10-15 years, enabling a climate politics that doesn't require sacrifice—something that wouldn't be possible without this technological progress.
“we ended up over the past 10, 15 years driving the price of solar down by 90%, driving the price of wind down, I think it's by 79% and the battery storage around by something comparable. It is only because of that genuine set of technological miracles, and I don't use miracles here to mean just luck, right? That was a huge huge amount of policy and human ingenuity, that we have any capacity to have a politics around climate change that is not just a politics of sacrifice”
California's UC system is a world-historical achievement in public higher education, but the state has added only one new UC campus (Merced) in decades despite continued population growth and need, exemplifying how Democrats stopped building new institutions.
“I don't think there is a greater public achievement, certainly not in education in the world than the University of California system... in my lifetime and well before it, having built the most remarkable public university system the world has ever known... They added exactly one UC campus, Merced. [ __ ] did we stop building UCs for? Did California stop having people? Did we stop needing great universities?”
Texas is producing more wind energy than any other state despite having no climate commitment, and Georgia and Iowa (governed by Republicans) build the most renewable energy, showing that when markets work without NIMBY interference, progressive outcomes emerge regardless of stated ideology.
“It is Texas that is building the most renewable and it is often places like Georgia and Iowa, not run by Democrats, but run often by Republicans who do not value climate change as a top order priority, that are building the most renewable energy. And that speaks to the fact that in some cases, if you allow a market to work without the interference of NIMBY politics, you sometimes, ironically, end up with more progressive outcomes.”
60% of 30-year-olds had children 40 years ago, but only 27% do today; this is not because people don't want children but because they cannot afford them.
“we go back to where we were 40 years ago, where 60% of 30-year-olds have a kid versus 27% now. I don't think it's cuz people don't don't like kids. I think it's cuz they can't afford them.”
Raising tariffs while trying to build a manufacturing base is economically irrational because the first thing any country building an industrial base should do is make it easier for domestic companies to sell overseas, as South Korea and Taiwan did, not make overseas buyers retaliate with 50% tariffs.
“Raising tariffs while trying to build a manufacturing base is one of the craziest things I've ever heard. I mean, the worst thing you can possibly do when you're building a manufacturing base in any country is to make it impossible for domestic manufacturers to sell overseas. The first thing you want to do if building an industrial base This is what South Korea did, it's what Taiwan did is find a way to make it easier for your domestic companies to sell overseas, not to get every overseas buyer to hate you so much that they retaliate their tariffs up to 50%.”
The University of California system built the greatest public achievement in education in the world, but has only added one campus (Merced) in decades while California's population and demand for universities continued growing.
“I don't think there is a greater public achievement, certainly not in education in the world than the University of California system... UC had when I was in I was a [ __ ] student... But when I went, that's how I got into Santa Cruz. I qualified in on test scores. But the thing is, like in my lifetime and well before it, having built the most remarkable public university system the world has ever known... They added exactly one UC campus, Merced. [ __ ] did we stop building UCs for? Did California stop having people? Did we stop needing great universities?”
In Portland, Oregon, every mayor and governor elected says 'housing is priority' but refuses to allow building outside 1972 land use lines or anything blocking views of Mount Rainier, showing how local rules prevent supply expansion even when leaders claim to support it.
“You look at a place like Portland, Oregon. In Portland, Oregon, every single mayor and every single governor that's elected says, 'Housing is our priority.' But if you ask, 'Can we build outside of the current lines uh that are drawn by the 1972 uh land use laws?' They say, 'No, we can't do that.' If you ask if you can build a new apartment building that blocks a view of Mount Rainier, they say, 'Actually, our view of Mount Rainier is more important than the additional uh than additional new housing units.'”
LA went from being coated in smog in the 1980s to having clean air today while becoming richer and bigger, proving that growth and environmental improvement are compatible when driven by technological progress rather than de-growth politics.
“I grew up in LA. Remember coming home from school and your chest would hurt when you breathe in? Yep. And what's crazy today, and it's a way I think you know that the only future is not de-growth. What's crazy today is LA is richer, it's bigger, and you can breathe the air.”
70% of U.S. housing land is zoned for single-family homes, preventing both new abundant housing supply and experimentation with communal/clan-based family forms that many young people desire.
“you can't do it if 70% of the housing land in this country is owned for single family. So I think you don't just need to make new things possible. I think you need to make experimentation possible.”
60% of 30-year-olds had children 40 years ago, but only 27% have children now; this decline is not because people dislike children but because they cannot afford them economically.
“60% of 30-year-olds have a kid versus 27% now. I don't think it's cuz people don't don't like kids. I think it's cuz they can't afford them.”
Donald Trump has substantially reshaped the Republican Party over time on trade, immigration, Russia/Ukraine, national security, and cultural issues (requiring leaders to be 'decent Christians'), despite doing so autocratically, showing that parties can and do change.
“Donald Trump, if he's proven anything, it's that you can reshape what a party is about. Now, he's done it autocratically. But over time, Donald Trump has substantially changed what the Republican Party is. On trade, on immigration, on Russia, on Ukraine, on national security, uh on whether it is important for your leaders to lead a decent Christian life”
Democratic-governed cities and states have the worst housing crises in the country (California, New York, Illinois, Minnesota losing population) not because oligarchy is stronger there, but because Democratic-led governments have allowed habits, customs, rules, and regulations to restrict housing supply, particularly through zoning and land-use restrictions.
“Why is it that California has the worst affordable housing crisis in the country? Why is it that the five states with the highest rates of homelessness are all states that are governed by Democrats? Is it because the oligarchy is stronger in Democratic states? Or is it because in place after place governed by Democrats, we have allowed habits and customs and rules and regulations to get in the way of what you and I and Ezra all want, which is more housing supply?”
Democrats lost people's faith in economic stewardship because they often don't spend taxpayer money well; Musk/Trump cutting the IRS and Social Security Administration will actually lose money (fewer audits of the wealthy) rather than improve efficiency, showing they're not trying to help the economy but trying to gut government.
“They don't trust Democrats to spend your money well, and part of the reason is we often don't spend people's money well. Now, Musk and Trump don't give a [ __ ] about where money's being spent well and poorly. They're trying to gut the Social Security Administration, which spends money incredibly effectively, incredibly effectively. They're gutting the IRS. And when you cut people the IRS, they don't audit rich people, and you lose money, right? They're not trying to save money, they're not trying to make government more efficient.”
Without technology advances in green cement and jet fuel, climate decarbonization targets cannot be met, regardless of policy because these are necessary inputs to achieve emissions reductions across all sectors.
“if we don't figure out green cement and jet fuel, we're not hitting our climate targets one way or the other”
China has built 23,000 miles of high-speed rail in the time California has failed to build 500 miles, and the Second Avenue Subway in New York has the highest cost per kilometer of rail ever recorded in human history, with subsequent phases projected to cost even more—showing that taxing the wealthy more won't solve government inefficiency.
“China has a hell of a lot less in tax dollars per capita than we do, and they've built 23,000 miles of high-speed rail in the time California's failed to build 500... The Second Avenue Subway, highest cost per kilometer of rail ever recorded in human history. There's no amount of taxing we can do that is going to allow us to build a bunch of subway if it's all going to cost like that.”
No elite US university has been founded in the top 25 of US News ranking in the last 100 years; Chicago and Stanford (both 100+ years old) are the most recent. This reflects a century-long pause in institutional building that coincides with slowing invention and construction.
“name an elite college that has been founded in the last 100 years. I think two of the last ones that are in to the top 25 of any kind of US News & World Report ranking are things like Chicago and Stanford, which are over 100 years old. It's been a century that we've taken a timeout from building the kind of institutions that we used to spring up and pop up every 5 years. In the last half of the 19th century.”
Donald Trump won the 2024 election primarily on cost of living; people trust Trump more on the economy than Democrats, and this trust gap persists even in earlier elections (2016, 2020) when voters were tired of Trump, showing systematic distrust of Democratic economic stewardship.
“Donald Trump won in 2024 on cost of living. He won because people trusted him on inflation over Democrats... if you go look at exit polls in 2020, when people are tired of Donald Trump, he was even with Joe Biden on the economy. And if you go look at 2016, he was ahead of Hillary Clinton on the economy even as he lost the popular vote. People do not trust Democrats on the economy.”
The Trump administration exempts specific goods from tariffs (auto parts, USMCA goods) while speaking about them, showing they haven't thought through the knock-on effects and lack a coherent tariff model.
“During the podcast, they kept exempting things from their tariff policy while I was trying to explain their tariff policy. Trump was at the speech the night before and saying he had talked to the heads of the big three automakers and they were all thrilled. And I'm literally talking about this in the podcast and my producer is like, 'They just exempted auto goods.'”
Trump's tariff policy on Canadian lumber and Mexican drywall immediately raises the two key inputs of housing by 25%, directly contradicting his mandate to address unaffordability in the country.
“The National Association of Home Builders came out with a message after the tariff announcement that said, 'This is going to be a catastrophe. Our inputs include lumber from Canada and drywall material from Mexico, and now we're going to increase the taxes on those inputs by 25%. This is a president who understood his mandate, which was all about unaffordability in this country, to immediately raise the two key inputs of housing by 25%. It's complete effing madness.'”
When UCLA admitted 76% of applicants and UC had eligibility rules guaranteeing admission for students above a 3.3 GPA or 1400 SAT, it created broader educational access than today's elite scarcity-focused model.
“For me, at UCLA, it was 76% when I applied. And I was one of the first 100 people to apply... UC had a thing then called eligibility. And it was a sliding scale, but if you got above a 3.3 or above a 1,400 on your SATs or something in between that sliding scale, you were guaranteed admission to Riverside or Santa Cruz. Or UCI”
Scott's tax rate has dropped from 30%+ in his 30s-40s to 17% over the last decade, and he sees progressive taxation as necessary for funding major investments in rail, UC, and defense while maintaining Social Security and Medicare.
“My tax rate for the last 10 years has been 17%. I'm very transparent about from my 30s and 40s, I was averaging over 30%. Then I got very wealthy and my tax rate has been cut in half. I mean, in order to make these sorts of big bold investments in rail, in UC, and still have the money to pay for our defense department, Medicaid, Medicare, doesn't it simply quite frankly just come down to restoring a progressive tax policy?”
The Democratic Party brand is less popular than Donald Trump himself—a major signal that Democrats have lost public trust and must demonstrate internal change to regain credibility.
“One is that you have to take seriously that people don't like you. You have to take seriously the Democratic Party brand is trash. I mean, just look at it in the polling. It's less popular than Donald Trump himself. And Donald Trump is not a popular person or candidate.”
A tariff on restaurant imports of Mexican produce harms restaurants that invest locally and create American jobs, showing how tariffs hurt domestic businesses and workers in ways the administration doesn't understand.
“What if you're a uh restaurant, and you have built your restaurant in the United States. And you employ people locally to cook your food and serve your customers and clean your dishes. But like most restaurants, some percentage of the fruit and produce that you use is imported from Mexico. So here you are investing locally, creating American jobs, and you are not having your taxes cut and your regulations cut. You just had a large tax put on one of your main inputs, which is food.”
The U.S. is racing ahead of Europe in productivity and China is falling behind expectations from 5 years ago, partly because the U.S. has benefited from global economic integration and technological progress.
“This is not the year 1210 AD. Like this is 2025. We have a complex global economy and we are on the forefront of it, racing ahead of Europe in productivity, watching China fall behind where we thought they would be 5 years ago because we have been we've had plenty of failures along the way and plenty of people we didn't help out and plenty of things we didn't protect or invest enough in.”
Average age of first-time homebuyers has risen from 25 to 37 years old, with record numbers of young people unable to afford homes, making housing affordability the most important topic for the 2028 election.
“we have seen the average age of first-time homeowners go from 25 to 37 years old. We now have a record high number of young people who say they cannot afford a home because the cost of housing as a share of average incomes has gone up and up and up.”
Chicago's Mayor Brandon Johnson spending $11 billion to create 10,000 affordable units at $1.1 million per unit is not how abundance thinks about housing—paying too much rather than building efficiently.
“AOC has a bill to do more public housing. That's great. I am all I want public housing to be palatial. I want it everywhere. But if we force public housing to operate under the rules that it currently does, which makes it much more expensive to build public housing, Brandon Johnson, the mayor of Chicago, just tweeted out trying to brag about this, that they had spent um I think it was 1.1 What was it? 11 billion? It was I I believe it was 11 billion dollars on 10,000 affordable units coming out to 1.1 million. Oh, yeah, mayor's 10,000. So, yeah, it's coming out to 1.1 million dollars per affordable housing unit funded by the city. We can't be spending 1.1 million dollars on affordable housing unit.”
Stephen Moore's 41-page CEA paper justifying tariffs relies on a narrow path where other countries don't retaliate, but retaliatory tariffs are already happening, meaning the theory has collapsed and no serious economic model underpins the policy.
“Stephen Moore, and the head of the CEA, his paper which people are looking at as a holy grail of what all this actually means, he talks about a narrow path in this dense 41-page paper about how maybe all this goes perfectly. And his whole theory is that you work with other countries in a way that they don't put retaliatory tariffs back on If they do put retaliatory tariffs back on you, then his whole theory collapses. It's already happening. We're already off the narrow path.”
One in four households with children in red states are food insecure, showing the severity of American inequality and scarcity for working families despite overall abundance.
“we end up with one in four households with children in red states are food insecure”
Oil and gas production increased under the Biden-Harris administration, yet Harris ran on this increase rather than on climate investments, showing that energy politics remain dominated by fears of shortage and sacrifice rather than abundance.
“Kamala Harris, in a time of high energy prices, was running not on the climate investments of the Biden-Harris administration, but on the oil and gas production increase of the Biden-Harris administration.”
A country manufacturing advanced machinery using intermediate inputs from Europe or Japan benefits from those inputs; tariffs on these inputs harm the domestic manufacturer's competitiveness even though assembly and value-addition happens locally.
“What if you're a you make advanced machinery and a bunch of the input materials and intermediate materials you need are sourced in from Europe or from Japan, but you do the assembly of making this highly value-added product here. Like are they helping you out? No, they're not. Because one like at the core of their politics is suspicion of the rest of the world.”
LA today is richer, bigger, and has breathable air compared to when the speaker grew up there in the 1970s-80s when smog made it hard to breathe; this proves the only future is not de-growth but technological progress in air quality/health.
“I grew up in LA... you still had LA coated in smog. You would still go in and you'd be like looking at this you think is it cloudy? Or can I not breathe today? remember coming home from school and your chest would hurt when you breathe in... And what's crazy today... LA is richer, it's bigger, and you can breathe the air.”
The absence of sufficient housing in big cities that drive the American economy is a crisis that must be solved; without sufficient housing, decarbonization goals cannot be met because solar, wind, battery facilities must be built at a much faster pace under less restrictive regulatory frameworks.
“Two of the core tributaries of the book are housing and decarbonization. Uh we are very, very worried about the absence of sufficient housing in the big, particularly the cities, although not only, that drive the American economy, and we're simply not going to meet decarbonization goals. I mean, you're probably at this point not going to meet them anyway, but you're not going to meet decarbonization goals if you can't build solar, wind, battery manufacturing facilities, and and other things at a much, much, much faster pace than we've seen so far, and that are frankly possible under the way liberal governments, including national Democratic governments, tend to create the rules for construction.”
China built 23,000 miles of high-speed rail in the time California has failed to build 500 miles, despite California having higher tax dollars per capita; this shows the problem is political will and procedural capacity, not resource availability.
“China has a hell of a lot less in tax dollars per capita than we do, and they've built 23,000 miles of high-speed rail in the time California's failed to build 500.”
People discussing having children as cost-benefit analysis (like a Costa Rica trip) reflects excessive individualism, when children have intrinsic value and existence itself is a gift whose importance may exceed the parent's preferences.
“I I hear so many people talk about and they ask me about in my AMAs and stuff having kids like it's, you know, just a cost-benefit analysis like taking a trip to Costa Rica. I think there's something more valuable about that and it's not just about your life. It is also about the degree to which we should cherish the existence and the gift of existence others get to have, right? The question of me having kids is not are my weekends better or worse? Their experience of the weekend is important. It may always be more important than mine. And so I I do think there's cultural dimensions to this too that are not easily amenable to policy, but but do require uh uh a kind of set of discussions and a sense of what is the good life”
In 2024 exit polls, Kamala Harris ran not on the climate investments of the Biden-Harris administration but on the oil and gas production increases of that administration because energy prices were politically salient.
“Think about how Kamala Harris, in a time of high energy prices, was running not on the climate investments of the Biden-Harris administration, but on the oil and gas production increase of the Biden-Harris administration.”
Democrats lost 2024 primarily because they didn't appear to have a clear answer on affordability, and Trump won on cost-of-living despite losing the popular vote in 2016 and being even on economy with Biden in 2020.
“I think we lost two games in 2024. I think we lost a substantive game with affordability and I think we lost an attention game... I would tell Democrats, remember why we lost the 2024 election. It was because a plurality of Americans said that they couldn't afford the life that they wanted. They couldn't afford the good life.”
Scott Galloway's thesis is that all economic and social policy should be reverse-engineered to enable people 18-40 to meet, couple, and have children: mandatory national service, more third places, increased remote work taxation, higher minimum wage, universal child tax credit, and pre-K to restore fertility to ~60% of 30-year-olds from current 27%.
“I think the ends are creating an operating system, a platform, an economy that enables people to have deep and meaningful relationships... the unifying theory of everything that should be we reverse engineer all of our public policy and economic decisions to one thing, and that is people 18 to 40 should have the opportunities to meet each other, mandatory national service, more freshman classes, more third places... we have more people, quite frankly, having more sex, falling in love, and then have the economic wherewithal to have children... we go back to where we were 40 years ago, where 60% of 30-year-olds have a kid versus 27% now.”
The unifying theory for all policy should be enabling 18-40 year-olds to meet, couple, and have children—through housing affordability, mandatory national service, third places, remote work taxation, and economic support.
“I think it's all a means to the ends, but the ends are creating an operating system, a platform, an economy that enables people to have deep and meaningful relationships... The unifying theory of everything that should be we reverse engineer all of our public policy and economic decisions to one thing, and that is people 18 to 40 should have the opportunities to meet each other, mandatory national service, more freshman classes, more third places, quite frankly, more alcohol, such that they can uh tax remote works, one in three relationships begin at work, such that um we have more people, quite frankly, having more sex, falling in love, and then have the economic wherewithal to have children, universal child tax credit, pre-K, minimum wage of $25 an hour”
The left has given up on discussing family structure and what family forms might be better, leaving only right-wing cultural messaging, when liberals should experiment with new family models (co-living, clan-based, communal child-rearing).
“I think the left has given up on having even any way to talk about what family structure it believes in. I don't think you're going to be able to go back to the '50s the way some of these people think you will. That includes people like Perry. Um I think you're going to imagine things that are new. Thing I think that housing actually can be a part of it, but also in terms of experimenting more. Like I know a lot of people want to raise kids in co-living situations. It's extremely hard to figure out how you can colocate with your six best friends, you know, who are coupled and always your kids together. I don't think it should be that hard. I think we should make that a lot easier to experiment with.”
Portland's 1972 land use laws and view preservation rules (prioritizing Mount Rainier view over housing units) are specific examples of how liberal policies themselves restrict supply even when mayors say housing is a priority.
“In Portland, Oregon, every single mayor and every single governor that's elected says, 'Housing is our priority.' But if you ask, 'Can we build outside of the current lines uh that are drawn by the 1972 uh land use laws?' They say, 'No, we can't do that.' If you ask if you can build a new apartment building that blocks a view of Mount Rainier, they say, 'Actually, our view of Mount Rainier is more important than the additional uh than additional new housing units.'”
The Democratic Party brand is less popular than Donald Trump himself, which is remarkable because Trump is unpopular, meaning Democrats have made themselves less liked than an unpopular candidate.
“You have to take seriously that people don't like you. You have to take seriously the Democratic Party brand is trash. I mean, just look at it in the polling. It's less popular than Donald Trump himself. And Donald Trump is not a popular person or candidate.”
Chicago's mayor Brandon Johnson announced spending $11 billion on 10,000 affordable housing units, which costs $1.1 million per unit—unsustainably expensive compared to what's needed, and reflects checkbook liberalism focused on spending rather than supply-focused liberalism focused on building efficiently.
“Brandon Johnson, the mayor of Chicago, just tweeted out trying to brag about this, that they had spent um I think it was 1.1 What was it? 11 billion? It was I I believe it was 11 billion dollars on 10,000 affordable units coming out to 1.1 million. Oh, yeah, mayor's 10,000. So, yeah, it's coming out to 1.1 million dollars per affordable housing unit”
J.D. Vance tweets that Trump will reward companies investing in America and punish those building outside it, but this toy model of the economy ignores that most American businesses rely on imported inputs—it's economically naive.
“J.D. Vance tweets, uh this was yesterday... 'If you invest in and create jobs in America, you'll be rewarded. We'll lower regulations and reduce taxes. But if you build outside of the United States, you're on your own.' Okay. Um so, this toy model of the economy they have is such lunacy.”
California and other blue states have the worst housing crises despite being governed by Democrats who claim housing is a priority, suggesting the problem is not oligarchy but liberal rules, regulations, and NIMBYism preventing new construction.
“Why is it that California has the worst affordable housing crisis in the country? Why is it that the five states with the highest rates of homelessness are all states that are governed by Democrats? Is it because the oligarchy is stronger in Democratic states? Or is it because in place after place governed by Democrats, we have allowed habits and customs and rules and regulations to get in the way of what you and I and Ezra all want, which is more housing supply?”
Making clan-based and communal living (co-housing with multiple coupled families and shared children) easier is important, because current default of nuclear family + two working parents (or single parent) is a recent, unusual human experiment in isolation.
“making things that are a little bit more clan-based, a little bit more communal possible again. But you can't do it if 70% of the housing land in this country is owned for single family. So I think you don't just need to make new things possible. I think you need to make experimentation possible... I know a lot of people want to raise kids in co-living situations. It's extremely hard to figure out how you can colocate with your six best friends, you know, who are coupled and always your kids together. I don't think it should be that hard... We like the thing where we're raising all these kids in two working parent families or often one single parent family, that's a huge experiment in human history. That is not how we did it.”
Political freedom requires freedom to live where you want to live due to rational housing markets—this is the abundance definition of freedom, contrasting with Reagan's 'freedom from government.'
“every great political movement has in America been a kind of redefinition of freedom. Right? The New Deal order was about defining the four freedoms, of speech and belief, from want, from fear. And in the 1980s, Ronald Reagan created a new a new political order in this country that some call neoliberalism, which redefined freedom not freedom of, but freedom from. Freedom from government. In a way, I think abundance is another redefinition of freedom. And at the heart of that freedom is the freedom to live where you want to live because we have a rational housing market in this country that makes it affordable to have a place of your own in the place you want to live.”
The difference between Andrew Tate (pagan) and Jordan Peterson (Christian) is meaningful for understanding different moral frameworks, and this can illuminate distinctions in Trump administration figures like Elon Musk (pagan) vs J.D. Vance (Christian).
“I have this thing that comes from something uh the sort of conservative British feminist um Louise Perry said in a very wise interview, where she she has this point that the difference between Andrew Tate and Jordan Peterson is that Tate is a pagan and Peterson is a Christian, which I thought was interesting. And it made me think about how you could cut the uh Trump administration the same way. Like Elon Musk is a pagan, J.D. Vance is a Christian, that kind of thing.”
American wineries growing grapes in America face tariffs on their exports to Canada (their biggest export market) because of the trade war, despite investing locally and employing Americans—tariffs hurt domestic exporters.
“I happened to just like, you know, be in the kind of waiting room place and I don't know why I opened up Wine Spectator cuz I don't actually like wine, but it had a alarmed editorial in Wine Spectator about how American wineries, their biggest export market is Canada. And so here these wineries, they are growing their grapes in America, they employ people in America to pick their grapes and make their wine and bottle their wine and etc. But because they want to sell to Canadians and Donald Trump is starting a trade war with Canada, they are getting a big price and being made less competitive.”
Government policy—including German subsidies for solar and Chinese subsidies for the solar industry—drove solar prices down 90% and wind prices down 79% over the past 10-15 years, enabling climate politics based on abundance rather than sacrifice.
“We ended up in a world where due to a series, by the way, of policies, right? Government funding of research, the German subsidies, particularly for solar, Chinese subsidies for the solar industry, we ended up over the past 10, 15 years driving the price of solar down by 90%, driving the price of wind down, I think it's by 79% and the battery storage around by something comparable.”
The Second Avenue Subway in New York has the highest cost per kilometer of rail ever recorded in human history, with next phases projected to cost even more, proving that regulatory and planning failures, not funding scarcity, prevent rail construction.
“In New York City, in New York State, taxes here high. It's a fairly high tax jurisdiction, at least compared to other places. The Second Avenue Subway, highest cost per kilometer of rail ever recorded in human history. There's no amount of taxing we can do that is going to allow us to build a bunch of subway if it's all going to cost like that. And by the way, the next phases are projected to cost more.”
The value of Medicare and Medicaid depends on what devices, treatments, surgeries, and pharmaceuticals are available—Medicare with Ozempic is more valuable than without it, and unknown autoimmune conditions cannot be treated without innovation.
“But how valuable having any kind of health insurance is, how valuable having private health insurance is, how valuable Medicare is, Medicaid is, is dependent on what devices, treatments, surgeries, pharmaceuticals are there. Medicare and Medicaid that cover Ozempic is more valuable than Medicare and Medicaid that does not cover Ozempic or Wegovy or the other ones. And if it didn't exist, they would all be less valuable, right? There are people with huge numbers right now of autoimmune conditions we don't understand. These insurance products would be a hell of a lot more valuable to people if we knew how to cure those and the insurance could cover the cures.”
The left needs to move beyond purely individualistic framing of childbearing (as cost-benefit analysis like a Costa Rica trip) and recover the idea that having children is valuable not just for personal happiness but for the gift of existence and experience given to others.
“I hear so many people talk about and they ask me about in my AMAs and stuff having kids like it's, you know, just a cost-benefit analysis like taking a trip to Costa Rica. I think there's something more valuable about that and it's not just about your life. It is also about the degree to which we should cherish the existence and the gift of existence others get to have, right? The question of me having kids is not are my weekends better or worse? Their experience of the weekend is important. It may always be more important than mine.”
Right-wing populism thrives on scarcity—suspicion of the rest of the world, immigrants, and other nations—with the belief that trade cannot be positive-sum and that cooperation weakens rather than strengthens a country.
“At the core of their politics is suspicion of the rest of the world. It is suspicion of immigrants. It is suspicion of other nations. It is suspicion that trade can ever be positive-sum, that cooperation is something we should actually do, that you are made stronger by having beneficial interactions with each other.”
Trump administration policies on tariffs, immigration, and science (gutting institutions) all solve the perceived problem of scarcity by creating more scarcity, when the actual solution is to expand supply and abundance.
“He's saying Americans don't have enough housing, and therefore we need fewer immigrants. America doesn't have enough manufacturing, and therefore we need higher tariffs...America doesn't have enough science that we think answers the kind of questions that we want, and therefore we're going to gut scientific institutions entirely. I think that's an approach to politics that essentially says we solve our problems of scarcity with just more scarcity.”
In the late 19th century, during a period of extensive building (houses, roads, canals, telegraph wires), America was also building institutions; there is a correlation between technological innovation/building and institutional founding.
“I don't think it's a coincidence that the same time that we were inventing things left and right and building houses and building roads and building canals and building telegraph wires in the late 19th century, we were also building institutions.”
There are five oligarchs who control most of the world's attention across social media platforms, all lined up at Trump's inauguration; this concentration of attentional power is a structural threat to democracy.
“I'm very worried about oligarchy of attention. We have most of the world's attention being dominated on various social media platforms by like five guys who were all lined up next to each other at Donald Trump's inauguration.”
Modular housing could significantly reduce public and private housing costs, making it easier to scale affordable housing; modular nuclear could allow countries like China and India to continue economic growth while cutting carbon emissions, enabling them to leapfrog the development path the West took.
“we're not using housing as an example, but modular housing would do a lot to change the politics of housing if you could use them in a lot of cities because you could do public housing much more cheaply and you could also do non-public housing much more cheaply. Uh energy and continued advance in things like modular nuclear could really, really, really make possible a situation where you could have countries like China and India continuing to grow and continuing to give people vastly better lives while also cutting carbon emissions. They could leapfrog the kind of development uh we went through.”
At the core of Trump's politics is suspicion of the rest of the world, suspicion of immigrants, and suspicion that trade can ever be positive-sum; he fundamentally doesn't believe in cooperation and views every interaction as dominance or losing rather than mutual benefit.
“At the core of their politics is suspicion of the rest of the world. It is suspicion of immigrants. It is suspicion of other nations. It is suspicion that trade can ever be positive-sum, that cooperation is something we should actually do, that you are made stronger by having beneficial interactions with each other.”
Abundance is not an omnidirectional expansion of everything; it requires strategic choice about what specific domains need more supply—particularly housing, decarbonized energy, and scientific/technological capacity—and identifying the bottlenecks preventing that supply.
“I think abundance is a positive vision of the future that liberals can build if we get out of our own way. And I think it starts first with actually having a goal... But these are different markets, and different markets have different problems, and they have different bottlenecks... part two, after you have a goal of where you want to go, is understanding what industries you're actually working in... part of abundance requires us identifying the bottlenecks that are in our way”
There's a distinction between 'checkbook liberalism' that brags about spending money on problems vs. 'outcome-based liberalism' that brags about how efficiently it builds things; Democrats have adopted the former when they should adopt the latter.
“There's a kind of checkbook liberalism that associates success with how much money you can spend. That's a liberalism that brags about 11 billion dollars spent on 10,000 affordable units. There's another kind of liberalism that brags not about how much you spend, but about how much you build. And that's the kind of liberalism that would say, look how easy it was for us to build 10,000 affordable units. Forget the price tag, look how quickly we did it, and look at the people who are now living there. That's an outcome-based liberalism”
Democrats must change what the party is about (as Trump changed the Republican Party on trade, immigration, national security, Christian values) and admit publicly where they failed, rather than play dead and wait for Trump to fail—change requires internal conflict and fighting that shows energy.
“When what you are currently, in the case of the Democratic Party, is a party that says it's of the working class and is losing working class voters, whether now defined by income or education, then you have to change, right?... And that means in public saying how the next generation of them is going to be different, and what they have rethought... You are going to need a resistance... they need to be an alternative... they need to admit the places where they failed... you need to unlock the energy, the attentional energy of creating some internal fights, of making some people mad”
In a complex global economy in 2025 (unlike the year 1210 AD when zero-sum dominance made sense), America benefits from cooperation and integration; tariffs and dominance-seeking are anachronistic strategies that assume everyone is either winning or losing rather than mutual prosperity.
“He wants to dominate these other countries and close our border because at the absolute gutteral level, he thinks you're either winning or losing in every single interaction and that is not the way the economy works. This is not the year 1210 AD. Like this is 2025. We have a complex global economy and we are on the forefront of it”
One pathology of liberal governance is that liberals often don't choose which problems to focus on; instead, they lard policy with too many goals, too many standards, too many regulations, which prevents achievement of any single goal.
“And so, we in the book sort of run through these, not just at a policy level, but also at a more conceptual level, sort of one by one. Housing, energy, state capacity, the structures that lead to invention, and then the structures and and ways we turn that invention into actual technology that is produced in a way people can use. You have to choose, and if there's any one, I think, uh pathology we are pulling at inside the way liberals govern, and we're both, you know, American liberals, it's that we often don't choose. We lard things up with too many goals, too many standards, too many regulations, and we uh don't take seriously that you're going to achieve anything, you need to focus on achieving that thing. Getting anything done well is hard, and we pretend it's easy, and then act surprised when we fail.”
Right-wing populism thrives on narratives of scarcity (that America isn't growing fast enough, people can't afford what they want), but Trump's response—tariffs, reduced immigration, gutting scientific institutions—adds more scarcity on top of existing shortages rather than solving them through abundance.
“I think Donald Trump is a scarcity candidate. I think his political success was created by a sense of scarcity, a sense of America wasn't growing fast enough, a sense that people couldn't afford what they wanted to afford, whether it whether it was groceries or housing. What we've seen the first few weeks of the Donald Trump administration is that he's using America's existing shortages to demand more deprivations. He's saying Americans don't have enough housing, and therefore we need fewer immigrants. America doesn't have enough manufacturing, and therefore we need higher tariffs, which are essentially a tax on imports, right? America doesn't have enough science that we think answers the kind of questions that we want, and therefore we're going to gut scientific institutions entirely. I think that's an approach to politics that essentially says we solve our problems of scarcity with just more scarcity.”
The job of political agenda is not to prescribe the good life but to build a platform/stage enabling people to make free choices; affordable housing is the most important platform element because young people can't date, marry, or form families while living with parents.
“I personally don't think that it is a political agenda's job to define and inscribe the good life explicitly into people's lives. I think it's the job of a political agenda to build a platform, a stage upon which people can make free choices that make them happy. And the most important part of that platform and stage that I think many young people today are missing is affordable housing. If you look at the share of young people who still live with their parents in their 20s and even early 30s, it's higher than it's ever been outside of a recession. It's very, very hard to go on a successful date and get married when you're still living with your parents in your 20s and 30s.”
The value of health insurance (Medicare, Medicaid, private insurance) is dependent on what treatments, pharmaceuticals, devices, and surgeries exist; Medicare/Medicaid coverage of Ozempic is vastly more valuable to beneficiaries than coverage without such medications, so innovation is crucial to insurance value.
“how valuable having any kind of health insurance is, how valuable having private health insurance is, how valuable Medicare is, Medicaid is, is dependent on what devices, treatments, surgeries, pharmaceuticals are there. Medicare and Medicaid that cover Ozempic is more valuable than Medicare and Medicaid that does not cover Ozempic or Wegovy or the other ones. And if it didn't exist, they would all be less valuable, right?”
Government has stopped building new cultural and educational institutions (universities, museums, libraries) at the scale that wealthy industrialists did in the Gilded Age; modern billionaires build personal ventures (rocket companies, yachts) rather than public institutions.
“he was making this point about how the robber barons were monsters in a million different ways. They're also remarkable in other ways. But man, do they leave behind cultural institutions and institutions of learning. Vanderbilt's a great university. Really is. What are they all doing today? What are they all doing today? And he was like making the point about museums and and art... The rich of this era are, you know, building their, you know, personal rocket companies and getting their yachts. Um but they're not creating like new institutions of local or for that matter national value.”
When governments believe they can complete infrastructure projects on time and on budget, they undertake ambitious versions (e.g., tunneling for high-speed rail); when they lose faith in this capability, they build less ambitious versions without tunnels, which are cheaper but less useful.
“as we stop the the narrow version of this is that as we find that we cannot build rail at any acceptable cost point, we do a lot of less building of rail with tunnels in it because tunnels are expensive and they're difficult to do. In other countries, they do a lot more tunneling because they still believe they can build rail. And when you believe you can build rail and actually finish it on time and on budget, you'll do the hard versions of rail which include tunnels.”
A 'progressive tax policy' restoring higher marginal rates on the wealthy is necessary to fund infrastructure and social programs like defense, Medicaid, Medicare, high-speed rail, and clean energy, but is insufficient without execution/supply-side reform.
“I absolutely a fan of restoring progressive tax policy in this country... institutions cost a lot of money... Fusion technology does not exist right now and getting it off the ground might be a very expensive enterprise... So, absolutely, I believe that progressivism requires sufficient funding. But I also think that an important part of this book... subtly nudges the question toward the opposite side of the ledger, which is how do we solve the problems that we have with supply?”
Over 40 years, the US constructed the economy to make consumer goods cheap and abundant (flat-screen TVs now common) while making building-block goods expensive (college debt-free became impossible, childcare/healthcare/housing sky-rocketed).
“Look, we've had also, as you know better than anybody, Scott, uh abundance of consumer goods for a long time. And behind that abundance of consumer goods, where, you know, 40 years ago, you could go to public college debt-free, but you couldn't have a flat-screen television uh anchored on your wall in your house, now you probably can't go to college public college debt-free, and you can have a flat-screen television. So, we kind of constructed government and the global economy to make the things that fill a house cheap and things that build a life expensive.”
There is a dysfunctional relationship between liberals and technology that emerged particularly after 2016, with concerns about oligarchic billionaires, disinformation, and Facebook propaganda causing liberals to turn against technology despite needing it for solutions.
“One of the aims of the book is to repair what we think of as a dysfunctional relationship that has emerged between liberals and technology. There is a tendency to put technology, I think particularly after 2016, it's run by a bunch of oligarchic billionaires, there's a ton of certainly in the liberal mind disinformation and propaganda on Facebook. Liberals sort of turn on technology.”
J.D. Vance scolds childless women, Andrew Tate is pagan while Jordan Peterson is Christian; the Trump administration includes pagan Elon Musk and Christian J.D. Vance, but Democrats have abandoned ability to discuss what family structure is good.
“I think it's a much it's cultural, it's also technological in terms of, you know, birth control and fertility windows and and all the rest of it. I'm not sure we know how to do it. I do agree, though, that we could make the whole thing a hell of a lot easier. I do agree that housing is a big part of that, and economics are a big part of that. And also, I agree that culture is a big part of that. And I think it matters that I think you see in J.D. Vance with his scolding of childless cat ladies. I I sort of have this thing that comes from something uh the sort of conservative British feminist um Louise Perry said in a very wise interview, where she she has this point that the difference between Andrew Tate and Jordan Peterson is that Tate is a pagan and Peterson is a Christian, which I thought was interesting. And it made me think about how you could cut the uh Trump administration the same way. Like Elon Musk is a pagan, J.D. Vance is a Christian, that kind of thing.”
Liberalism must have a technological innovation agenda in addition to a social insurance agenda, requiring serious attention to both the mechanisms of technological progress and the distribution of its fruits.
“So liberalism has to have a technological agenda in addition to a social insurance agenda and that means taking the mechanisms and institutions of technological progress and then the distribution of the fruits of that technological progress seriously.”
Politics of sacrifice do not work and have a terrible tendency to elect strong men from the authoritarian right, as demonstrated by yellow vest riots in France and Kamala Harris losing because she couldn't message energy policy as abundant.
“It is only because of that genuine set of technological miracles... that we have any capacity to have a politics around climate change that is not just a politics of sacrifice because politics of sacrifice do not typically work. And they have a terrible tendency to elect strong men from the authoritarian right. You go to people and you say, 'We're going to cut how much energy you have, we're going to ration your energy.' Nothing destabilizes a polity faster. Think about the yellow vest riots in France. Think about how Kamala Harris, in a time of high energy prices, was running not on the climate investments of the Biden-Harris administration, but on the oil and gas production increase of the Biden-Harris administration.”
Abundance is a positive vision of the future requiring three components: first, having a clear goal of where you want to go; second, understanding the specific industries and bottlenecks involved; and third, identifying and removing policy obstacles to improve outcomes.
“I think abundance is a positive vision of the future that liberals can build if we get out of our own way. And I think it starts first with actually having a goal. This book is about politics, and it's about policy, but it opens actually with a sci-fi vignette of what the world of 2050 could look like if we get everything right in housing, in energy, in science and technology and governance. But these are different markets, and different markets have different problems, and they have different bottlenecks. And so, part two, after you have a goal of where you want to go, is understanding what industries you're actually working in... And finally, I think that abundance requires us identifying the bottlenecks that are in our way, and the policies that we don't have yet that could improve our outcomes.”
Trump administration policies cannot be understood through economic theory or ideology—personality explains everything Trump does, including making pronouncements, making people feel inferior, and using phone calls to negotiate bilateral deals.
“And in a way, maybe I'm even giving him and his political uh habits even too much credit by sounding them in any kind of ideological character. I do think that personality explains everything that Donald Trump wants to do. He's someone who likes to make big pronouncements, make people feel like they're less than, get on the phone, work out a deal.”
The U.S. has constructed government and the global economy to make consumer goods cheap while making things that build a life expensive—child care, health care, education, housing, and energy—creating a fundamental misalignment of priorities.
“Look, we've had also, as you know better than anybody, Scott, uh abundance of consumer goods for a long time. And behind that abundance of consumer goods, where, you know, 40 years ago, you could go to public college debt-free, but you couldn't have a flat-screen television uh anchored on your wall in your house, now you probably can't go to college public college debt-free, and you can have a flat-screen television. So, we kind of constructed government and the global economy to make the things that fill a house cheap and things that build a life expensive. Child care, health care, education, housing, energy, um and a a set of other things that we think of as more of the building blocks of production and the building blocks of flourishing.”
A pro-growth, pro-technology, pro-liberal values agenda requires choosing specific priorities (like housing and energy) rather than attempting omnidirectional 'moreness' across all policy domains.
“Our theory is not just more of everything. I think we have a line in the book that it's not an omnidirectional moreness. You have to choose what you need more of.”
Modular housing could dramatically reduce the cost of both public and non-public housing, and modular nuclear could enable China and India to continue growing while cutting carbon emissions through leapfrogging development patterns.
“we're not using housing as an example, but modular housing would do a lot to change the politics of housing if you could use them in a lot of cities because you could do public housing much more cheaply and you could also do non-public housing much more cheaply. Uh energy and continued advance in things like modular nuclear could really, really, really make possible a situation where you could have countries like China and India continuing to grow and continuing to give people vastly better lives while also cutting carbon emissions. They could leapfrog the kind of development uh we went through.”
The tension between the processes liberals use and the outcomes they want is fundamental: if outcomes are in Texas but priorities are in San Francisco, progressives must ask why and change their political processes to enable building rather than blocking.
“So I think you've put your finger on a really, really important tension between the processes that liberals have and the outcomes that they want. Why are our outcomes living in Texas if our priorities live in San Francisco? That is an incredibly important question for the progressive movement to ask itself if it wants to answer the question and actually build the things that we say we want to build.”
As countries stop believing they can build infrastructure on time and on budget (like California with rail), they do less ambitious versions—fewer tunnels, shorter routes—whereas belief in buildability enables hard versions with full infrastructure.
“when you believe you can build rail and actually finish it on time and on budget, you'll do the hard versions of rail which include tunnels. And I think there's something like that that has infected a lot of state governments, for that matter the federal government, and a lot of societies wealthy where they just don't really believe in building great new institutions.”
Democrats and liberals must use taxpayer dollars well because people don't trust Democrats on the economy, and this distrust is because they often spend people's money poorly—not just because they fail to tax the rich enough.
“And the fact that rich people have too much money, and we should tax more of it, doesn't exempt us from the need to use taxpayer dollars well. And I think this is a conceptual and political mistake Democrats and liberals make a lot. Because taxing rich is popular, it's great. But the reason people don't trust us on all kinds of things, and something I try to keep telling people, is like, yeah, Donald Trump won in 2024 on cost of living. He won because people trusted him on inflation over Democrats. But if you go look at exit polls in 2020, when people are tired of Donald Trump, he was even with Joe Biden on the economy. And if you go look at 2016, he was ahead of Hillary Clinton on the economy even as he lost the popular vote. People do not trust Democrats on the economy. They don't trust Democrats to spend your money well, and part of the reason is we often don't spend people's money well.”
There is a distinction between 'checkbook liberalism' (bragging about money spent) and 'outcome-based liberalism' (bragging about speed, cost-efficiency, and lives improved)—the latter is what abundance represents.
“I don't want to spend too much time harping on the poor mayor of Chicago, whose approval rating at this point is way below the Mendoza line, but I think it's really important to distinguish that form of liberalism from the kind of liberalism we're advancing in this book. There's a kind of checkbook liberalism that associates success with how much money you can spend. That's a liberalism that brags about 11 billion dollars spent on 10,000 affordable units. There's another kind of liberalism that brags not about how much you spend, but about how much you build. And that's the kind of liberalism that would say, look how easy it was for us to build 10,000 affordable units. Forget the price tag, look how quickly we did it, and look at the people who are now living there. That's an outcome-based liberalism that I think is very different from the kind of progressivism that has become a habit on the left in the last few years.”
Democrats should focus on demonstrating that supply-side solutions (housing, energy, manufacturing) can address affordability better than Trump's scarcity approach, especially since Trump doesn't control city housing policy.
“How do we focus on affordability? How do we give people a set of new answers on affordability and frankly, I think our book does that. It does that by shifting attention toward how do we solve these problems with supply? And especially, how do we solve the mother of all affordability problems, which is housing with supply? In many cases, the good news here is that Donald Trump, for all of his authoritarian power, does not control housing policy in San Francisco. He does not control housing policy in Boston. He does not control housing policy in Los Angeles. It is those cities, run by those citizens and the people that they elect, who control housing policy there, which means that they have the ability to answer problems no matter what Donald Trump does.”
Democrats have become afraid of talking to people who disagree with them due to 'purity culture,' creating an insular left that doesn't reach center voters who agree with some Democratic positions but not all.
“The second big mistake that I think that Democrats made in 2024 and in the previous few years is I think that we've become afraid of talking to people who disagree with us. There's been a kind of purity culture that has come up on the left. And sometimes you could argue it came up for good reason. Democrats were fighting for causes that they found incredibly worthy and they didn't want those causes contaminated by voices that they disagreed with. But as a result, I think it's created an insular character on the left that doesn't feel like it is extending an arm toward people in the center who agree with some of what we support, but not everything that we support.”
To build a lasting political order (like the New Deal, which lasted decades), Democrats must reach 55-60% of voters, not just 48% plus one, requiring different communication strategies and substantive focus.
“Ultimately, what we want, I think, is to redefine what the Cambridge historian Gary Gerstle calls a political order, a set of political and economic rules that doesn't just win two and four-year elections, but actually can last for decades, the same way that the New Deal order lasted for decades. And to do that, you have to reach way beyond the 48% that's automatically going to vote for you in every quadrennial election. You have to reach out to the 55 and the 60%. And that requires not just a different kind of substantive focus, I think it requires a different theory of how to communicate.”
J.D. Vance's scolding of childless cat ladies is an effort to change culture toward natalism, reflecting a Christian moral framework about family obligation and existence as gift.
“But J.D. Vance's scolding of people was an effort to change culture, right? I think that's why he was doing it and also because he's become very resentful.”
A pathology of liberal governance is loading initiatives with too many goals, standards, and regulations without focusing on achieving the core objective, leading to failure and then surprise when things don't work.
“I think uh pathology we are pulling at inside the way liberals govern, and we're both, you know, American liberals, it's that we often don't choose. We lard things up with too many goals, too many standards, too many regulations, and we uh don't take seriously that you're going to achieve anything, you need to focus on achieving that thing. Getting anything done well is hard, and we pretend it's easy, and then act surprised when we fail.”
Progressivism requires sufficient funding through taxation, but the quantity of money raised is only one side of the ledger; the other critical side is supply expansion—building more affordable housing, clean energy, etc.
“I also think that an important part of this book, an important framework of abundance, subtly nudges the question toward the opposite side of the ledger, which is how do we solve the problems that we have with supply? Not the demand that comes from taxpayer money, which is important, but also the strategy that comes or the outcomes that come from expanding supply.”
Scott Galloway's tax rate dropped from 30%+ when he was in his 30s-40s to 17% recently, despite becoming much wealthier—showing that tax progressivity has been eroded and the wealthy pay lower effective rates than they used to.
“My tax rate for the last 10 years has been 17%. I'm very transparent about from my 30s and 40s, I was averaging over 30%. Then I got very wealthy and my tax rate has been cut in half.”
The average age of first-time homebuyers has increased from 25 to 37 years old, and a record high number of young people say they cannot afford homes because housing costs as a share of average incomes has risen substantially.
“we have seen the average age of first-time homeowners go from 25 to 37 years old. We now have a record high number of young people who say they cannot afford a home because the cost of housing as a share of average incomes has gone up and up and up.”
Politics of sacrifice (telling people to ration energy) destabilize democracies and elect strong men; the Yellow Vest riots in France and Kamala Harris's electoral strategy (running on increased oil/gas production, not climate investments) show sacrifice is politically toxic.
“politics of sacrifice do not typically work. And they have a terrible tendency to elect strong men from the authoritarian right. You go to people and you say, 'We're going to cut how much energy you have, we're going to ration your energy.' Nothing destabilizes a polity faster. Think about the yellow vest riots in France. Think about how Kamala Harris, in a time of high energy prices, was running not on the climate investments of the Biden-Harris administration, but on the oil and gas production increase of the Biden-Harris administration.”
The Democratic Party lacks a national invention agenda, and even Elon Musk, despite his association with MAGA, has no vision of what America can build—only what he wants to tear down.
“I think it's pretty remarkable that when you think about how important science and technology are to improving people's health and improving people's lives, this country doesn't have a national invention agenda. The Democratic Party doesn't have one. You might expect that Elon Musk, now that he's associated himself with the MAGA movement, would inscribe a kind of uh wise techno-optimist idea within that party. He hasn't. He has no vision of what America can be. He has a vision of what he wants to tear down.”
Liberals have a dysfunctional relationship with technology stemming from post-2016 concerns about oligarchic billionaires, disinformation, and propaganda, but many critical problems cannot be solved without technology and innovation.
“One of the aims of the book is to repair what we think of as a dysfunctional relationship that has emerged between liberals and technology. There is a tendency to put technology, I think particularly after 2016, it's run by a bunch of oligarchic billionaires, there's a ton of certainly in the liberal mind disinformation and propaganda on Facebook. Liberals sort of turn on technology. But there's a lot you just can't solve without technology and a lot about your politics that really change if you get the right technological advancements.”
In Scott's view, the oligarchy prevents abundance through extraction: inserting intermediaries (private companies) between consumer and public goods (healthcare, housing, prisons) who prioritize shareholder value over public good, creating market power and raising prices.
“what we suffer from is policies that essentially insert certain companies in between the consumer on some public goods, including health care, uh housing, prison system, where the objective or the metrics are shareholder value, not the public good. They private company inserts themselves in the middle, uh it does a great job, innovation, applies technology, and then creates market power, raises the prices”
Donald Trump has reshaped what the Republican Party stands for on trade, immigration, Russia/Ukraine, national security, and moral leadership, showing that party identity is not fixed but can be changed autocratically.
“Donald Trump, if he's proven anything, it's that you can reshape what a party is about. Now, he's done it autocratically. But over time, Donald Trump has substantially changed what the Republican Party is. On trade, on immigration, on Russia, on Ukraine, on national security, uh on whether it is important for your leaders to lead a decent Christian life, or whether you want like the god of the pagans, Elon Musk, with his, as somebody put it, 13-ish children to be your standard-bearer alongside Donald Trump with his, you know, three marriages, etc.”
Higher education is driven by a scarcity mindset: when deans announce rejecting 85% of applicants, faculty and alumni applaud, showing how prestige is built on exclusion rather than abundance of education.
“when the dean announces we've rejected 85% of applicants, what do the faculty and the alumni do? They stand up and they applaud. I'm curious if you've thought about how this scarcity or non-abundance mindset has infected higher education”
Abundance should be understood as a redefinition of freedom (like the New Deal's four freedoms or Reagan's freedom from government); the core of this freedom is 'freedom to live where you want to live' because a rational housing market makes it affordable.
“I think that every great political movement has in America been a kind of redefinition of freedom. Right? The New Deal order was about defining the four freedoms, of speech and belief, from want, from fear. And in the 1980s, Ronald Reagan created a new a new political order in this country that some call neoliberalism, which redefined freedom not freedom of, but freedom from. Freedom from government. In a way, I think abundance is another redefinition of freedom. And at the heart of that freedom is the freedom to live where you want to live because we have a rational housing market in this country that makes it affordable to have a place of your own in the place you want to live.”
In the late 19th century, robber barons invested heavily in cultural institutions and universities despite their unethical business practices, whereas today's billionaires build personal rocket companies and yachts rather than institutions.
“he was making this point about how the robber barons were monsters in a million different ways. They're also remarkable in other ways. But man, do they leave behind cultural institutions and institutions of learning. Vanderbilt's a great university. Really is. What are they all doing today? What are they all doing today?... The rich of this era are, you know, building their, you know, personal rocket companies and getting their yachts. Um but they're not creating like new institutions of local or for that matter national value.”
Public housing in the U.S. is forced to operate under rules that make it much more expensive to build than it should be; even with higher taxes on the wealthy, if these rules aren't changed, the country can't afford to build the quantity of public housing needed.
“if we force public housing to operate under the rules that it currently does, which makes it much more expensive to build public housing...We can't be spending 1.1 million dollars on affordable housing unit.”
Elite universities claim that doubling or tripling size would destroy quality, but this is defensible only as opinion; institutions could easily do new things and put money into new institutions rather than growing existing elite ones.
“I don't know. I have people I respect who will tell me, well, you know, the you know, if you double or triple the size of Harvard, it wouldn't be Harvard anymore and it would lose quality. I don't know that I buy that. But you could sure as hell open these places up to a lot more innovation. You could sure as hell do a lot of new things and put a lot of money into new institutions.”
Democratic messaging strategy should focus laser-like on affordability as the primary issue that lost 2024, and should seek to reach centrist and disagreeing voters rather than remaining insular in a 'purity culture' that alienates the political center.
“I would tell Democrats, remember why we lost the 2024 election. It was because a plurality of Americans said that they couldn't afford the life that they wanted... And that means pointing out all of the lurid ways that Donald Trump is getting in the way... Focus on affordability... The second big mistake that I think that Democrats made in 2024 and in the previous few years is I think that we've become afraid of talking to people who disagree with us... I want us to be less embarrassed and less shy about talking to the center”
Stephen Moore's paper on Trump's tariff policy theorizes a narrow path where tariffs work only if other countries don't retaliate; this narrow path has already failed because retaliatory tariffs are already occurring.
“Stephen Moore, and the head of the CEA, his paper which people are looking at as a holy grail of what all this actually means, he talks about a narrow path in this dense 41-page paper about how maybe all this goes perfectly. And his whole theory is that you work with other countries in a way that they don't put retaliatory tariffs back on If they do put retaliatory tariffs back on you, then his whole theory collapses. It's already happening. We're already off the narrow path.”
Trump's tariff and trade policy can be explained as reflecting his personality: he likes to make big pronouncements, make people feel less than, work out individual deals, rather than any coherent economic strategy to expand production for Americans.
“And in a way, maybe I'm even giving him and his political uh habits even too much credit by sounding them in any kind of ideological character. I do think that personality explains everything that Donald Trump wants to do. He's someone who likes to make big pronouncements, make people feel like they're less than, get on the phone, work out a deal. And so, he likes a world where he threatens tariffs against the entire world and takes phone call after phone call after phone call from individual world leaders to work out little deals between him and that leader to get something for himself and the people who support him, right? This is not, in any capacity, a strategy to make more for Americans to want more.”
Musk and Trump aren't attempting government efficiency or cost-cutting; they're gutting the Social Security Administration and IRS—which spend money effectively—because they don't care about spending quality, only about disruption.
“Now, Musk and Trump don't give a [ __ ] about where money's being spent well and poorly. They're trying to gut the Social Security Administration, which spends money incredibly effectively, incredibly effectively. They're gutting the IRS. And when you cut people the IRS, they don't audit rich people, and you lose money, right? They're they're not trying to save money, they're not trying to make government more efficient. But there is not an amount of money we can tax people where that is going to lead to the kind of public infrastructure we want if we cannot build that public infrastructure.”
Two-parent working families and single-parent families raising children are a large-scale human experiment (not how families historically operated); different arrangements like co-living are possible and should be made legally and zoning-wise easier.
“We like the thing where we're raising all these kids in two working parent families or often one single parent family, that's a huge experiment in human history. That is not how we did it. So making things that are a little bit more clan-based, a little bit more communal possible again.”
J.D. Vance tweeted that Trump's economic policy is simple: invest in America and you get tax cuts and deregulation; build outside America and you're on your own, but this is a false 'toy model' that ignores global supply chains and punishes businesses that source inputs from abroad despite creating American jobs.
“J.D. Vance tweets, uh this was yesterday...President Trump's economic policies are simple. If you invest in and create jobs in America, you'll be rewarded. We'll lower regulations and reduce taxes. But if you build outside of the United States, you're on your own. Okay. Um so, this toy model of the economy they have is such lunacy.”