6 ms·

I just couldn't keep reading with the constant "antitrust left" being refered to on every sentence. The issue, is that for me, the reader, it framed the piece

I just couldn't keep reading with the constant "antitrust left" being refered to on every sentence. The issue, is that for me, the reader, it framed the piece as the author seemingly positioning themselves as the "the other side", the one that knows best and isn't those "antitrust left". It felt like it was creating a strawman and was engaging in tribal signaling. And when you consider the rest of the piece was them claiming they called the sources, and that the sources said that the "antitrust left" had misquoted them and misrepresented their findings, but the author somehow is this unbiased truth, and definitely really for real called the the sources and didn't at all misconstrue or anything, no they wouldn't do that, unlike the "antitrust left".

shazbotter 1y ago
I'm about as far left as you can be, as a syndicalist anarchist, and I definitely perceived a bit of what you described. But I'm not super worried about it because he didn't say "the left", but rather a specific lefty position. But also, the left isn't uniform on housing policy. Some folks want anti trust and limited capital ownership. Some folks want to de commodify housing. Some folks want all housing to be government built and owned. The left is a very diverse place (and the joke is no one hates leftists more than other leftists).
- gwd 1y ago
  Then why even bother calling it "left" at this point? Just say they're anti-monopoly. Is there really nobody on the right who are also anti-monopoly?
  - shazbotter 1y ago
    Presumably because anti monopoly right is much less common? Or because the anti monopoly right is concerned with different aspects of monopoly? If someone said they were anti monopoly, that the government should do something to prevent businesses from operating like that, I'd never expect them to be from the right to be honest.
    - gwd 1y ago
      > If someone said they were anti monopoly, that the government should do something to prevent businesses from operating like that, I'd never expect them to be from the right to be honest. So consider several perspectives: a. The government should be in charge of, or at least heavily involved in, planning and organizing most resources in a country. b. The market is a good way of solving most problems, and it works best if you just leave it alone, enforcing only very minimal rules (like property ownership, contracts, and such). c. The market can be a good way of solving many problems, if it's regulated so that it has the properties you want. Now consider other questions: Should abortion or pornography be legal / easily available? Should we invest in a large military? Should the government actively support "diversity" programs? Should gay marriage be allowed? How should the government relate to transgender people? There are LOTS of people who believe in c as a principle, but have very non-"lefty" opinions on the other questions. Loads of people who consider themselves "on the right" think that everyone "on the left" actually believes a, not c; and loads of people who consider themselves "on the left" think that everyone "on the right" actually believes b, not c. My sense is actually that the reason he talks that way is to make sure that people who consider themselves "on the left" don't mistake him for being someone "on the right" (and therefore in camp b), and immediately dismiss his claims.
      - sillyfluke 1y ago
        > My sense is actually that the reason he talks that way is to make sure that people who consider themselves "on the left" don't mistake him for being someone "on the right" (and therefore in camp b), and immediately dismiss his claims. This is a tad naive I think. "antitrust left" is also to useful term to use to signal to the billionaire class of Democratic party that you are not their enemy. If the author actually agreed with many of the antitrust group's positions and housing policy was one of the few exceptions they disagreed on, they would shy away from using the term. The only reason you would use that term is because you want to bring disrepute to their entire platform. These abundance folks appear to be the only hope the billionaire Democrats have after having sunk so low as to direct their media assets to support Cuomo and to pour bucketloads money into the coffers of the corrupt disgraced governor in order prevent those "wacky socialists" to gain any more traction.
  - ozgrakkurt 1y ago
    Tbh classification that makes most sense is wealth level. Ultra rich and very rich and rich and upper middle class and ..
  - mft_ 1y ago
    Because the underlying beliefs of a 'left' anti-monopolist and a 'right' anti-monopolist are likely very different, and similarly their proposed solutions and view of an ideal society will also diverge significantly? --- Also, it should be noted that we lack sufficiently concise but specific terms to use instead, and because alternative terms that are used are relative, and open to interpretation. e.g.: Many political commentators currently use the term "populist" to describe someone who's somewhat divergent from the capitalist political mainstream (and in US terms, I'd include the current Democrat establishment and traditional non-MAGA Republicans in this group). But when the term is applied to people as diverse as Corbyn, Sanders, and AOC on the one side, and Orban, Farage, and Trump on the other, it's nonsensical without much more explanation.
    - gwd 1y ago
      > Because the underlying beliefs of a 'left' anti-monopolist and a 'right' anti-monopolist are likely very different, and similarly their proposed solutions...? Just curious, how "left" and "right" anti-monopolist solutions might be different? I mean, naturally some "left anti-monopolist" people might be in favor of governments taking over industries, but presumably that's not what most of the people in question are advocating at the moment. > But when the term [populist] is applied to people as diverse as Corbyn, Sanders, and AOC on the one side, and Orban, Farage, and Trump on the other, it's nonsensical without much more explanation. I don't think so. It's essentially an accusation that they haven't thought through the hard issues: they're saying "We're going to achieve X", when in fact X is simply not possible given the current state of play (or perhaps, not possible without significant negative consequences, like erosion of human rights or setting up an economic or ecological disaster further down the road). Boris Johnson's promise to conservatives that they'd be able to "make a deal" which allowed them to trade freely with Europe while not accepting immigrants from Europe was just a fantasy. A lot of populist "progressive" politicians make similar kinds of promises.
      - bearl 1y ago
        Right anti-monopolistic policy: tariffs Left anti-monopolistic policy: destroy Musk via the press/court system. It can just be an empirical question, right?
- dv_dt 1y ago
  The people the article quoted as "left" like Stoller are really not left, and the whole anti-left felt more like a unnecessary strawman label and definite turn off for me reading it. I would characterize Stoller as an independent anti-monopolist - not really on the right or left spectrum at all politically. Unless the right is now pro-monopoly.
  - scoofy 1y ago
    He’s specifically talking about Zephyr Teachout. Her work is specifically in anti-monopoly stuff.
    - dv_dt 1y ago
      I'm confused, that name does not seem to occur in the article. Are you talking about some other context
      - scoofy 1y ago
        Yes, Teachout is one of the most prominent anti-monopoly advocates (along with Tim Wu). She wrote one of the first critical reviews of Abundance. She was then invited onto Klein's show to discuss the topic candidly with critics. Her positions are not "her's" but of a large section of the left who wants to blame the housing crisis on corporations rather than on cartel-like supply effects pushed by homeowner groups. Her review: https://washingtonmonthly.com/2025/03/23/an-abundance-of-ambiguity/ https://washingtonmonthly.com/2025/03/23/an-abundance-of-amb... Discussion with Teachout: https://youtu.be/Ib1wzwbL7Is https://youtu.be/Ib1wzwbL7Is
      - VintageCool 1y ago
        Zephyr Teachout wrote an early article critiquing Abundance, the book by Derek Thompson and Ezra Klein. She appeared on Ezra's podcast and (IMHO) did not appear to have thought very deeply about the problem of housing affordability; instead defaulting to "monopoly in housing construction" as the problem. Stoller and Musharbash are re-iterating the position that had been staked out by Zephyr Teachout in March. > Let’s assume that reforming rules on setbacks, parking, single-family zoning, and local input would achieve what they desire (the evidence is not straightforward; cities that have these reforms have lower costs, but they are rising at the same rate as in other cities). It would still seem relatively small-bore as a novel solution: Half of the 10 biggest cities in America—many in Texas—already have a zoning and procedural regime fairly close to what Klein and Thompson want. Are they simply arguing that Dems embracing Texas zoning approaches would transform national politics? That can’t be it. https://washingtonmonthly.com/2025/03/23/an-abundance-of-ambiguity/ https://washingtonmonthly.com/2025/03/23/an-abundance-of-amb... Much of the criticism of Abundance from prominent pundits on The Left (including Teachout and Nathan Robinson) has been along the lines of "the actual problem is corporate monopoly" rather than zoning. (Or maybe: "zoning is an easy problem to fix and a distraction from the real problem of corporate monopoly".)
0xB31B1B 1y ago
There is a specific group of people, matt stoller being the primary leader in the media, who are the "anti trust left". There is another specific group of people who are "abundance liberals" (dereck thompson and ezra klein being main media leaders) and there is an active competition inside the democratic/left of center politico-academic-policy-legal-media blob over prioritization of laypeoples attention and allegiance/belief which is in fact a finite resource and relatively zero sum between the two camps.
thrance 1y ago
It all makes sense when you take "abundance liberalism" for what it actually is: a rebranding of neoliberalism in support of establishment democrats. Its main goal is not to provide the democratic party with a new direction, but to defend the status quo against the populist left, incarnated by the likes of AOC and Mamdani. It makes sense then, that they'd spend more time attacking the left than the right, as they realize where the existential threat to the current democratic party lies. Personally, I think it's good that they're afraid.
- tghccxs 1y ago
  Do you think this specific criticism of the “populist left” by the “abundance liberals” is valid though?
  - bb86754 1y ago
    No, this guy (the writer of the article) has no idea what he’s talking about. I say this as someone isn’t even on the left. He sets a false dichotomy to protect himself from criticism. Zoning/building codes being too strict and monopolies existing in that market aren’t incompatible. It’s worth noting that there’s a lot of money behind this abundance movement or whatever, so that’s something to take into account when reading this stuff.
  - thrance 1y ago
    Truthfully, I don't. IMHO, abundance liberalism has a blind spot when it comes to the power of money in modern politics. We didn't stumble into a situation where buying a house requires an entire lifetime of work out of sheer bad luck. Some private interests greatly benefit from this situation and have enough power to keep things from changing. Until we address this, and the abundance crowd doesn't want to, all of this is pointless bickering.
    - lovich 1y ago
      Have you read the book? A large portion of it is dedicated to how we got here. Nimbyism and people’s desire to keep their property value high is part of it. The levers that have been used to make those values high include a ton of regulation that makes it impossible to build start ups homes even if you were a perfectly moral actor seeking to generate exactly 0 profit. > until we address all of this Address what? I was convinced by Ezra and Derek because they constantly show real evidence as the opposing side keeps bringing vibes. What are your actual, concrete issues that you think the abundance crowd is not addressing and what are your specific policy positions that you think need to be implemented first?
joenot443 1y ago
It's a shame to let two words color your opinion on an entire piece like that; I found it to be really compelling. Your last paragraph is a bit confusing; is it your position that Derek's lying? Which quote did you think was inaccurate? Or are you specifically concerned with his rhetoric?
- hobs 1y ago
  Two words that were repeated at least a half dozen times and used as the framing for the article. I literally went and looked at past articles to see how much this framing was used (and it wasn't) because when you use this framing you are literally appealing to tribalism and usually that comes with a LOT of other baggage.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- didibus 1y ago
  Yes, that's why I commented, as a kind of feedback, the piece could be so much better with a very small tweak. Replace "antitrust-left" with the name of the exact handful of people whose book/article/stance you are refuting.
spicyusername 1y ago
I mean, the article is responding specifically to a particular ideology... the antitrust left, so it makes sense.
banku_brougham 1y ago
I sense the labelling is a tell of sorts. As to the critique, I think the focus on homebuilder corporate profits leaves out important parts of the ecosystem. As example: Observing the only profitablity of Toys R Us as it collapsed would mislead you as to the very profitable exploit that KKR and Bain executed. Its a great article though, lots of facts to ponder. Would love a view of the next layer up into financial arrangements in those Texas housing markets.
cwmma 1y ago
Yeah this article treats it like an either/or situation where monopoly's somehow make it so regulations aren't the issue instead of what most of the monopoly takes say which is that monopoly builders make the situation worse and combine with the other problems.
animal_spirits 1y ago
I watched an interview with both the authors. They read as both left leaning but self critical of the regulations the left has put in place. It seemed like this leftist identity is part of the story so maybe that is why it is mentioned so much. https://youtu.be/D9wga7S3nAw?si=mZT3yhUG_z2DKref https://youtu.be/D9wga7S3nAw?si=mZT3yhUG_z2DKref
lovich 1y ago
The abundance vs anti abundance schism is internal on the left wing side of politics. The author of this article was also one of the authors of the titular Abundance book which named the movement, so he’s not positioning himself as the other side of the “anti trust left”, he quite literally is the other side that that group is fighting with

shazbotter 1y ago

I'm about as far left as you can be, as a syndicalist anarchist, and I definitely perceived a bit of what you described. But I'm not super worried about it because he didn't say "the left", but rather a specific lefty position. But also, the left isn't uniform on housing policy. Some folks want anti trust and limited capital ownership. Some folks want to de commodify housing. Some folks want all housing to be government built and owned. The left is a very diverse place (and the joke is no one hates leftists more than other leftists).

gwd 1y ago
Then why even bother calling it "left" at this point? Just say they're anti-monopoly. Is there really nobody on the right who are also anti-monopoly?
- shazbotter 1y ago
  Presumably because anti monopoly right is much less common? Or because the anti monopoly right is concerned with different aspects of monopoly? If someone said they were anti monopoly, that the government should do something to prevent businesses from operating like that, I'd never expect them to be from the right to be honest.
  - gwd 1y ago
    > If someone said they were anti monopoly, that the government should do something to prevent businesses from operating like that, I'd never expect them to be from the right to be honest. So consider several perspectives: a. The government should be in charge of, or at least heavily involved in, planning and organizing most resources in a country. b. The market is a good way of solving most problems, and it works best if you just leave it alone, enforcing only very minimal rules (like property ownership, contracts, and such). c. The market can be a good way of solving many problems, if it's regulated so that it has the properties you want. Now consider other questions: Should abortion or pornography be legal / easily available? Should we invest in a large military? Should the government actively support "diversity" programs? Should gay marriage be allowed? How should the government relate to transgender people? There are LOTS of people who believe in c as a principle, but have very non-"lefty" opinions on the other questions. Loads of people who consider themselves "on the right" think that everyone "on the left" actually believes a, not c; and loads of people who consider themselves "on the left" think that everyone "on the right" actually believes b, not c. My sense is actually that the reason he talks that way is to make sure that people who consider themselves "on the left" don't mistake him for being someone "on the right" (and therefore in camp b), and immediately dismiss his claims.
    - sillyfluke 1y ago
      > My sense is actually that the reason he talks that way is to make sure that people who consider themselves "on the left" don't mistake him for being someone "on the right" (and therefore in camp b), and immediately dismiss his claims. This is a tad naive I think. "antitrust left" is also to useful term to use to signal to the billionaire class of Democratic party that you are not their enemy. If the author actually agreed with many of the antitrust group's positions and housing policy was one of the few exceptions they disagreed on, they would shy away from using the term. The only reason you would use that term is because you want to bring disrepute to their entire platform. These abundance folks appear to be the only hope the billionaire Democrats have after having sunk so low as to direct their media assets to support Cuomo and to pour bucketloads money into the coffers of the corrupt disgraced governor in order prevent those "wacky socialists" to gain any more traction.
- ozgrakkurt 1y ago
  Tbh classification that makes most sense is wealth level. Ultra rich and very rich and rich and upper middle class and ..
- mft_ 1y ago
  Because the underlying beliefs of a 'left' anti-monopolist and a 'right' anti-monopolist are likely very different, and similarly their proposed solutions and view of an ideal society will also diverge significantly? --- Also, it should be noted that we lack sufficiently concise but specific terms to use instead, and because alternative terms that are used are relative, and open to interpretation. e.g.: Many political commentators currently use the term "populist" to describe someone who's somewhat divergent from the capitalist political mainstream (and in US terms, I'd include the current Democrat establishment and traditional non-MAGA Republicans in this group). But when the term is applied to people as diverse as Corbyn, Sanders, and AOC on the one side, and Orban, Farage, and Trump on the other, it's nonsensical without much more explanation.
  - gwd 1y ago
    > Because the underlying beliefs of a 'left' anti-monopolist and a 'right' anti-monopolist are likely very different, and similarly their proposed solutions...? Just curious, how "left" and "right" anti-monopolist solutions might be different? I mean, naturally some "left anti-monopolist" people might be in favor of governments taking over industries, but presumably that's not what most of the people in question are advocating at the moment. > But when the term [populist] is applied to people as diverse as Corbyn, Sanders, and AOC on the one side, and Orban, Farage, and Trump on the other, it's nonsensical without much more explanation. I don't think so. It's essentially an accusation that they haven't thought through the hard issues: they're saying "We're going to achieve X", when in fact X is simply not possible given the current state of play (or perhaps, not possible without significant negative consequences, like erosion of human rights or setting up an economic or ecological disaster further down the road). Boris Johnson's promise to conservatives that they'd be able to "make a deal" which allowed them to trade freely with Europe while not accepting immigrants from Europe was just a fantasy. A lot of populist "progressive" politicians make similar kinds of promises.
    - bearl 1y ago
      Right anti-monopolistic policy: tariffs Left anti-monopolistic policy: destroy Musk via the press/court system. It can just be an empirical question, right?
dv_dt 1y ago
The people the article quoted as "left" like Stoller are really not left, and the whole anti-left felt more like a unnecessary strawman label and definite turn off for me reading it. I would characterize Stoller as an independent anti-monopolist - not really on the right or left spectrum at all politically. Unless the right is now pro-monopoly.
- scoofy 1y ago
  He’s specifically talking about Zephyr Teachout. Her work is specifically in anti-monopoly stuff.
  - dv_dt 1y ago
    I'm confused, that name does not seem to occur in the article. Are you talking about some other context
    - scoofy 1y ago
      Yes, Teachout is one of the most prominent anti-monopoly advocates (along with Tim Wu). She wrote one of the first critical reviews of Abundance. She was then invited onto Klein's show to discuss the topic candidly with critics. Her positions are not "her's" but of a large section of the left who wants to blame the housing crisis on corporations rather than on cartel-like supply effects pushed by homeowner groups. Her review: https://washingtonmonthly.com/2025/03/23/an-abundance-of-ambiguity/ https://washingtonmonthly.com/2025/03/23/an-abundance-of-amb... Discussion with Teachout: https://youtu.be/Ib1wzwbL7Is https://youtu.be/Ib1wzwbL7Is
    - VintageCool 1y ago
      Zephyr Teachout wrote an early article critiquing Abundance, the book by Derek Thompson and Ezra Klein. She appeared on Ezra's podcast and (IMHO) did not appear to have thought very deeply about the problem of housing affordability; instead defaulting to "monopoly in housing construction" as the problem. Stoller and Musharbash are re-iterating the position that had been staked out by Zephyr Teachout in March. > Let’s assume that reforming rules on setbacks, parking, single-family zoning, and local input would achieve what they desire (the evidence is not straightforward; cities that have these reforms have lower costs, but they are rising at the same rate as in other cities). It would still seem relatively small-bore as a novel solution: Half of the 10 biggest cities in America—many in Texas—already have a zoning and procedural regime fairly close to what Klein and Thompson want. Are they simply arguing that Dems embracing Texas zoning approaches would transform national politics? That can’t be it. https://washingtonmonthly.com/2025/03/23/an-abundance-of-ambiguity/ https://washingtonmonthly.com/2025/03/23/an-abundance-of-amb... Much of the criticism of Abundance from prominent pundits on The Left (including Teachout and Nathan Robinson) has been along the lines of "the actual problem is corporate monopoly" rather than zoning. (Or maybe: "zoning is an easy problem to fix and a distraction from the real problem of corporate monopoly".)

0xB31B1B 1y ago

There is a specific group of people, matt stoller being the primary leader in the media, who are the "anti trust left". There is another specific group of people who are "abundance liberals" (dereck thompson and ezra klein being main media leaders) and there is an active competition inside the democratic/left of center politico-academic-policy-legal-media blob over prioritization of laypeoples attention and allegiance/belief which is in fact a finite resource and relatively zero sum between the two camps.

thrance 1y ago

It all makes sense when you take "abundance liberalism" for what it actually is: a rebranding of neoliberalism in support of establishment democrats. Its main goal is not to provide the democratic party with a new direction, but to defend the status quo against the populist left, incarnated by the likes of AOC and Mamdani. It makes sense then, that they'd spend more time attacking the left than the right, as they realize where the existential threat to the current democratic party lies. Personally, I think it's good that they're afraid.

tghccxs 1y ago
Do you think this specific criticism of the “populist left” by the “abundance liberals” is valid though?
- bb86754 1y ago
  No, this guy (the writer of the article) has no idea what he’s talking about. I say this as someone isn’t even on the left. He sets a false dichotomy to protect himself from criticism. Zoning/building codes being too strict and monopolies existing in that market aren’t incompatible. It’s worth noting that there’s a lot of money behind this abundance movement or whatever, so that’s something to take into account when reading this stuff.
- thrance 1y ago
  Truthfully, I don't. IMHO, abundance liberalism has a blind spot when it comes to the power of money in modern politics. We didn't stumble into a situation where buying a house requires an entire lifetime of work out of sheer bad luck. Some private interests greatly benefit from this situation and have enough power to keep things from changing. Until we address this, and the abundance crowd doesn't want to, all of this is pointless bickering.
  - lovich 1y ago
    Have you read the book? A large portion of it is dedicated to how we got here. Nimbyism and people’s desire to keep their property value high is part of it. The levers that have been used to make those values high include a ton of regulation that makes it impossible to build start ups homes even if you were a perfectly moral actor seeking to generate exactly 0 profit. > until we address all of this Address what? I was convinced by Ezra and Derek because they constantly show real evidence as the opposing side keeps bringing vibes. What are your actual, concrete issues that you think the abundance crowd is not addressing and what are your specific policy positions that you think need to be implemented first?

joenot443 1y ago

It's a shame to let two words color your opinion on an entire piece like that; I found it to be really compelling. Your last paragraph is a bit confusing; is it your position that Derek's lying? Which quote did you think was inaccurate? Or are you specifically concerned with his rhetoric?

hobs 1y ago
Two words that were repeated at least a half dozen times and used as the framing for the article. I literally went and looked at past articles to see how much this framing was used (and it wasn't) because when you use this framing you are literally appealing to tribalism and usually that comes with a LOT of other baggage.
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
didibus 1y ago
Yes, that's why I commented, as a kind of feedback, the piece could be so much better with a very small tweak. Replace "antitrust-left" with the name of the exact handful of people whose book/article/stance you are refuting.

spicyusername 1y ago

I mean, the article is responding specifically to a particular ideology... the antitrust left, so it makes sense.

banku_brougham 1y ago

I sense the labelling is a tell of sorts. As to the critique, I think the focus on homebuilder corporate profits leaves out important parts of the ecosystem. As example: Observing the only profitablity of Toys R Us as it collapsed would mislead you as to the very profitable exploit that KKR and Bain executed. Its a great article though, lots of facts to ponder. Would love a view of the next layer up into financial arrangements in those Texas housing markets.

cwmma 1y ago

Yeah this article treats it like an either/or situation where monopoly's somehow make it so regulations aren't the issue instead of what most of the monopoly takes say which is that monopoly builders make the situation worse and combine with the other problems.

animal_spirits 1y ago

I watched an interview with both the authors. They read as both left leaning but self critical of the regulations the left has put in place. It seemed like this leftist identity is part of the story so maybe that is why it is mentioned so much. https://youtu.be/D9wga7S3nAw?si=mZT3yhUG_z2DKref https://youtu.be/D9wga7S3nAw?si=mZT3yhUG_z2DKref

lovich 1y ago

The abundance vs anti abundance schism is internal on the left wing side of politics. The author of this article was also one of the authors of the titular Abundance book which named the movement, so he’s not positioning himself as the other side of the “anti trust left”, he quite literally is the other side that that group is fighting with