John, I’d love to get your take on this “abundance agenda.” My take is that it’s complete nonsense. I would put to you that we already have “abundance”, both in this country and even in the world. The problem is that too few have far too much and too many have far too little. This problem also occurs at a global scale. Instead of writing a book called “abundance”, perhaps they could write a book called “redistribution.” It should the intellectual vacuity of the ALP that they’re clutching this book. I mean the notion that be relaxing all planning laws will solve the housing crisis is hogwash. We’re always talking about “planning laws” here in Victoria and I am sure every other state and territory. But developers are sitting on thousands of approved dwellings. So it’s not the planning laws that are the problem, but the amazing forces of capital that Klein and Thompson say will be our saviour. Also interesting that Mandami and his more interventionist ideas seem to be an another current.
My view is that it’s a couple of useful points about NIMBYism and the over-reliance of the US on legalistic regulation, that have been grossly overblown into a supposed policy agenda. As you suggest, redistribution is much more important, though it’s not everything
But also to address your letter: I find this obsession with falling fertility rates idiotic. Isn’t it something to celebrate, as your letter points out. I mean from a purely psychological perspective, it is awful for kids to be part of large families. My mum and dad came from families of 7 and 6 respectively and the level of both emotional and material deprivation was real.
I'd like Australia to maintain a steady population for environmental reasons. Out my way high quality native remnant vegetation is being bulldozed for new houses and this is happening pretty much everywhere.
To the extent that Australian population growth is driven by migration, restricting migrants would mean building more houses in their home countries, with (to a first approximation) no net benefit to the global environment.
Pro natalist ideas are zombies. They are very hard to kill. They belong to that group of ideas which continue in their free floating existence without the need for supporting evidence. I presume they continue to exist as they fulfil some sort of psychological or sociological purpose.
I think that the word "we" is doing a lot of work here. John's thesis is spot-on if "we" includes the entire world. It looks a bit less convincing if "we" is, say, South Korea, which has plenty of education, few immigrants, and a very low fertility rate. With respect to the US and Europe, John's thesis might depend on immigration policy.
Do you have any thoughts as to why this book has achieved such cut through? Surely dozens of books are published each year by authors at least as qualified as these two and with implications at least as serious. Many of them would probably hang together better than this one, too. What gives?
I haven't read the book properly yet. It reflects an emerging policy consensus which hasn't had much in the way of serious defence, so its popularity is unsurprising.
John, I’d love to get your take on this “abundance agenda.” My take is that it’s complete nonsense. I would put to you that we already have “abundance”, both in this country and even in the world. The problem is that too few have far too much and too many have far too little. This problem also occurs at a global scale. Instead of writing a book called “abundance”, perhaps they could write a book called “redistribution.” It should the intellectual vacuity of the ALP that they’re clutching this book. I mean the notion that be relaxing all planning laws will solve the housing crisis is hogwash. We’re always talking about “planning laws” here in Victoria and I am sure every other state and territory. But developers are sitting on thousands of approved dwellings. So it’s not the planning laws that are the problem, but the amazing forces of capital that Klein and Thompson say will be our saviour. Also interesting that Mandami and his more interventionist ideas seem to be an another current.
My view is that it’s a couple of useful points about NIMBYism and the over-reliance of the US on legalistic regulation, that have been grossly overblown into a supposed policy agenda. As you suggest, redistribution is much more important, though it’s not everything
But also to address your letter: I find this obsession with falling fertility rates idiotic. Isn’t it something to celebrate, as your letter points out. I mean from a purely psychological perspective, it is awful for kids to be part of large families. My mum and dad came from families of 7 and 6 respectively and the level of both emotional and material deprivation was real.
I'd like Australia to maintain a steady population for environmental reasons. Out my way high quality native remnant vegetation is being bulldozed for new houses and this is happening pretty much everywhere.
To the extent that Australian population growth is driven by migration, restricting migrants would mean building more houses in their home countries, with (to a first approximation) no net benefit to the global environment.
Pro natalist ideas are zombies. They are very hard to kill. They belong to that group of ideas which continue in their free floating existence without the need for supporting evidence. I presume they continue to exist as they fulfil some sort of psychological or sociological purpose.
I think that the word "we" is doing a lot of work here. John's thesis is spot-on if "we" includes the entire world. It looks a bit less convincing if "we" is, say, South Korea, which has plenty of education, few immigrants, and a very low fertility rate. With respect to the US and Europe, John's thesis might depend on immigration policy.
It ought to be clear from the letter and publication that "we" means "the world as a whole, including rich countries like the US".
Immigration seems to me to be irrelevant to the point I'm making here. How does it affect educational opportunities?
It's hard to cover 192 countries in a 200 word letter, so I didn't mention S. Korea or, for that matter, Somalia (TFR ~6).
Simply wondering - when you refer to 'we':
Who do you have in mind - are these decisions being made with families or across society?
I realise that the two can't be separated, since the resources available to parents will depend on policy choices.
I thought I covered this pretty well in the letter
Do you have any thoughts as to why this book has achieved such cut through? Surely dozens of books are published each year by authors at least as qualified as these two and with implications at least as serious. Many of them would probably hang together better than this one, too. What gives?
I haven't read the book properly yet. It reflects an emerging policy consensus which hasn't had much in the way of serious defence, so its popularity is unsurprising.