3 ms·

I'm not sure if democracy has the tools to adequately deal with this tbh, at-least in the short-to-medium term. I really hope we can find a way to make voters

I'm not sure if democracy has the tools to adequately deal with this tbh, at-least in the short-to-medium term. I really hope we can find a way to make voters actually believe an abundant future is possible, and that it'll benefit them and their families. It's the biggest difference I see in societies like China, there's this pervasive optimism about technology, progress and abundance (~700 million people have first hand experience). No idea if they can keep up the growth but we sure won't.

scoofy 2y ago
We have the tools, it's just going to be inter-generational warfare, and nobody really wants to say it out loud. The bigger the housing crisis gets, the more people are going to change things on the state level instead of the local level. This isn't a pendulum shifting event, it's a cascade, and that's why Abundance is doing so well, and that's why things are getting ugly on the left.
- nimish 2y ago
  If old people -- literally or spiritually -- don't voluntarily get out of the way then they must be pushed out forcibly. It won't be pretty I'm afraid; not much else we can do however.
  - grumpy-de-sre 2y ago
    I vote, monetary policy, weapons of mass destruction [1]. At-least have a long term plan for deleveraging residential real estate. Sure that'll suppress construction even further for a while but I'm sure we can get to the other side. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_red_lines https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_red_lines
- grumpy-de-sre 2y ago
  On a purely numbers basis the older generation of homeowners far outnumber the young. It's going to take a good while before the balance of power can be shifted. Democracy has the longterm tools for sure, just not for another twenty years or so. Hopefully over time yimby can take hold in some pockets and gradually expand out from those strongholds.
  - scoofy 2y ago
    >On a purely numbers basis the older generation of homeowners far outnumber the young. The point is numbers of voters. There are more young voters now than older voters, this is why we are seeing things change at the state level. Now that many millennials are in there 40's with no real shot at home-ownership it's starting to freak people out. Which is why we will continue to see the YIMBY and Strong Towns movements, not just grow, but accelerate in growth.
    - grumpy-de-sre 2y ago
      I'm not sure how much acceleration we're seeing, do we have numbers on this? Or are voters just becoming disenfranchised? Acceleration is great hope/source of optimism.
      - scoofy 2y ago
        I've been in SF for a long time and I remember when the YIMBY movement didn't exist, just 10 years ago, and Sonja Trauss was trolling SF by running for Board of Supervisors and saying all this shit out load knowing she'd lose in a landslide. 10 years later, the governor is a self-proclaimed YIMBY (even though he isn't), a book on YIMBYism is a national best seller, and nationally, folks are finally realizing that the reason why we're losing the working class on the left is because the left cares more about their own property values than about helping working folks. All the while, there is the parallel center-right focused Strong Towns organization that is making the exact same argument for the exact same movement in more conservative areas. If that's not extreme acceleration I don't know what is.
- pessimizer 2y ago
  > We have the tools, it's just going to be inter-generational warfare, and nobody really wants to say it out loud. No, it's not. The people who own houses pass them down to their kids. As people invading a neighborhood, YIMBYs may be new, but they are not that young. They are early middle-aged and wealthy. They are trying to move into elite neighborhoods and cities that they can't afford, not trying to avoid homelessness. That's not a crisis. All of them can afford property, just not the best property in the world, (not coincidentally) near the jobs that pay them the most. The problem is normal-case housing affordability, not elites wanting to build high-rises. Normal housing affordability is ruined due to the asymmetry between resident homeowners as buyers and wealthy buyers. Wealthy buyers are trying to extract wealth from housing. Resident homeowners and renters are the extractees. The YIMBY goal is to make somebody in e.g. SF refusing to sell, and/or refusing to allow the houses on the corner to be demolished and a high-rise put in, the enemy. I have no idea why YIMBYs think they are either more rational, more likeable, or more victimized than that homeowner. Maybe all of the self-praise.
  - scoofy 2y ago
    Yea, this is exactly what I mean by economic warfare: >The people who own houses pass them down to their kids. Pass them to one of their kids, who will likely be 65 or older when they inherit it. That leaves about 45 years where these kids will need to find housing. >As people invading a neighborhood That's an interesting way to say "moving somewhere for a job and to build a life." >They are trying to move into elite neighborhoods and cities that they can't afford Yea, this is absurd. People just want a decent place to live.
    - nimish 2y ago
      Yep!
RickS 2y ago
This is the china of "let it rot"[1] and a housing market so f'd that people felt pressure to buy and pay for houses that didn't even exist yet, leading to a massive mortgage boycott[2] in protest of all the resultant shenanigans? They're already failing to keep up the growth[3], their population pyramid projections are pretty bleak going forward. I agree with you re the need to convince modern western voters of an (actual) abundant future, but china seems like they're not doing so hot either. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tang_ping https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tang_ping [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_mortgage_boycott https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_mortgage_boycott [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aging_of_China https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aging_of_China
- grumpy-de-sre 2y ago
  All of the above is completely true. But right now they are in the acute/fallout phase of a massive economic disruption (the deleveraging of a highly indebted real estate sector, no less severe than the GFC, they overbuilt to a massive degree). No matter what folks are going to be struggling bad atm. The trillion dollar question is what does this look like in ten years? It could go either way. A Japan style lost decade, or they manage to find and exploit new growth opportunities. I guess we'll see whether having pretty much the cheapest energy on the planet and impressive logistics allows them to get through this. Do not discount the tremendous potential of electrification, and cheap renewable energy.
  - Gareth321 2y ago
    China's population is already declining, and that decline is accelerating. They are projected to lose 100M people by 2050, and 500M by 2075. Given their aversion to immigration, demand will continue to plummet for those unoccupied properties. This is clearly the end of their property boom. This was one of the last options left to ordinary Chinese to build wealth. Their stock market is little more than a slot machine. It is encouraging what we see with their EV boom, but a car industry alone cannot sustain a nation with declining population levels. China has sold so few technological innovations over the decades that I do not see them innovating their way out of this.
casey2 2y ago
US democracy is just better at managing perception and allowing controlled opposition. Dissent exists, but it’s channeled into ineffective political battles that don’t threaten the ruling structure. People think they have a say because they can vote, use twitter, get their guy in/out the whitehouse, but real systemic change is nearly impossible. Even now "doge is destroying everything the sky is failing" as they go back to scrolling. China prevents dissent through suppression, while the U.S. redirects it into endless debates that never challenge the underlying system. As a capitalism enjoyer this is good for me, these systems only exist to waste the time of "idealists" and reactionaries. The hands off approach used to be better, but with more technology population control becomes much cheaper, and now all the wasted time from arguing about politics and political decisions becomes a real cost center for the US.

scoofy 2y ago

We have the tools, it's just going to be inter-generational warfare, and nobody really wants to say it out loud. The bigger the housing crisis gets, the more people are going to change things on the state level instead of the local level. This isn't a pendulum shifting event, it's a cascade, and that's why Abundance is doing so well, and that's why things are getting ugly on the left.

nimish 2y ago
If old people -- literally or spiritually -- don't voluntarily get out of the way then they must be pushed out forcibly. It won't be pretty I'm afraid; not much else we can do however.
- grumpy-de-sre 2y ago
  I vote, monetary policy, weapons of mass destruction [1]. At-least have a long term plan for deleveraging residential real estate. Sure that'll suppress construction even further for a while but I'm sure we can get to the other side. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_red_lines https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_red_lines
grumpy-de-sre 2y ago
On a purely numbers basis the older generation of homeowners far outnumber the young. It's going to take a good while before the balance of power can be shifted. Democracy has the longterm tools for sure, just not for another twenty years or so. Hopefully over time yimby can take hold in some pockets and gradually expand out from those strongholds.
- scoofy 2y ago
  >On a purely numbers basis the older generation of homeowners far outnumber the young. The point is numbers of voters. There are more young voters now than older voters, this is why we are seeing things change at the state level. Now that many millennials are in there 40's with no real shot at home-ownership it's starting to freak people out. Which is why we will continue to see the YIMBY and Strong Towns movements, not just grow, but accelerate in growth.
  - grumpy-de-sre 2y ago
    I'm not sure how much acceleration we're seeing, do we have numbers on this? Or are voters just becoming disenfranchised? Acceleration is great hope/source of optimism.
    - scoofy 2y ago
      I've been in SF for a long time and I remember when the YIMBY movement didn't exist, just 10 years ago, and Sonja Trauss was trolling SF by running for Board of Supervisors and saying all this shit out load knowing she'd lose in a landslide. 10 years later, the governor is a self-proclaimed YIMBY (even though he isn't), a book on YIMBYism is a national best seller, and nationally, folks are finally realizing that the reason why we're losing the working class on the left is because the left cares more about their own property values than about helping working folks. All the while, there is the parallel center-right focused Strong Towns organization that is making the exact same argument for the exact same movement in more conservative areas. If that's not extreme acceleration I don't know what is.
pessimizer 2y ago
> We have the tools, it's just going to be inter-generational warfare, and nobody really wants to say it out loud. No, it's not. The people who own houses pass them down to their kids. As people invading a neighborhood, YIMBYs may be new, but they are not that young. They are early middle-aged and wealthy. They are trying to move into elite neighborhoods and cities that they can't afford, not trying to avoid homelessness. That's not a crisis. All of them can afford property, just not the best property in the world, (not coincidentally) near the jobs that pay them the most. The problem is normal-case housing affordability, not elites wanting to build high-rises. Normal housing affordability is ruined due to the asymmetry between resident homeowners as buyers and wealthy buyers. Wealthy buyers are trying to extract wealth from housing. Resident homeowners and renters are the extractees. The YIMBY goal is to make somebody in e.g. SF refusing to sell, and/or refusing to allow the houses on the corner to be demolished and a high-rise put in, the enemy. I have no idea why YIMBYs think they are either more rational, more likeable, or more victimized than that homeowner. Maybe all of the self-praise.
- scoofy 2y ago
  Yea, this is exactly what I mean by economic warfare: >The people who own houses pass them down to their kids. Pass them to one of their kids, who will likely be 65 or older when they inherit it. That leaves about 45 years where these kids will need to find housing. >As people invading a neighborhood That's an interesting way to say "moving somewhere for a job and to build a life." >They are trying to move into elite neighborhoods and cities that they can't afford Yea, this is absurd. People just want a decent place to live.
  - nimish 2y ago
    Yep!

RickS 2y ago

This is the china of "let it rot"[1] and a housing market so f'd that people felt pressure to buy and pay for houses that didn't even exist yet, leading to a massive mortgage boycott[2] in protest of all the resultant shenanigans? They're already failing to keep up the growth[3], their population pyramid projections are pretty bleak going forward. I agree with you re the need to convince modern western voters of an (actual) abundant future, but china seems like they're not doing so hot either. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tang_ping https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tang_ping [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_mortgage_boycott https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_mortgage_boycott [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aging_of_China https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aging_of_China

grumpy-de-sre 2y ago
All of the above is completely true. But right now they are in the acute/fallout phase of a massive economic disruption (the deleveraging of a highly indebted real estate sector, no less severe than the GFC, they overbuilt to a massive degree). No matter what folks are going to be struggling bad atm. The trillion dollar question is what does this look like in ten years? It could go either way. A Japan style lost decade, or they manage to find and exploit new growth opportunities. I guess we'll see whether having pretty much the cheapest energy on the planet and impressive logistics allows them to get through this. Do not discount the tremendous potential of electrification, and cheap renewable energy.
- Gareth321 2y ago
  China's population is already declining, and that decline is accelerating. They are projected to lose 100M people by 2050, and 500M by 2075. Given their aversion to immigration, demand will continue to plummet for those unoccupied properties. This is clearly the end of their property boom. This was one of the last options left to ordinary Chinese to build wealth. Their stock market is little more than a slot machine. It is encouraging what we see with their EV boom, but a car industry alone cannot sustain a nation with declining population levels. China has sold so few technological innovations over the decades that I do not see them innovating their way out of this.

casey2 2y ago

US democracy is just better at managing perception and allowing controlled opposition. Dissent exists, but it’s channeled into ineffective political battles that don’t threaten the ruling structure. People think they have a say because they can vote, use twitter, get their guy in/out the whitehouse, but real systemic change is nearly impossible. Even now "doge is destroying everything the sky is failing" as they go back to scrolling. China prevents dissent through suppression, while the U.S. redirects it into endless debates that never challenge the underlying system. As a capitalism enjoyer this is good for me, these systems only exist to waste the time of "idealists" and reactionaries. The hands off approach used to be better, but with more technology population control becomes much cheaper, and now all the wasted time from arguing about politics and political decisions becomes a real cost center for the US.