3. In the olden days, contrarian and revisionist takes were very welcome. But the rules were:
A) Attack a clearly defined and widely accepted consensus.
B) Accept that the burden of proof was on you to rebut that consensus, anticipating counterarguments.
Abundance doesn't play by those rules.
A) Attack a clearly defined and widely accepted consensus.
B) Accept that the burden of proof was on you to rebut that consensus, anticipating counterarguments.
Abundance doesn't play by those rules.
Comments
A) The consensus is hidden, even to its adherents.
B) The burden of proof is on people that question the revisionist take, who are asked to justify data they may have never thought about, like Austin v. New York housing build times. The counterarguments are (said to be) a surprise.
It's hard to tell how much this confusion is intentionally generated or genuinely unanticipated.
Think tanks and policy schools are struggling to adapt. How to train for it?
The tl;Dr is that I don't think Bay Area housing constraints are that relevant for national industrial policy, and that political factions need an organizable base.
https://rooseveltforward.org/2025/03/23/abundance-are-we-going-to-like-the-answers-in-2050/