>False modesty aside, Build, Baby, Build also provides a more sophisticated political economy than Abundance. Blaming “our dysfunctional and polarized parties” sounds good, but the root cause of democratic dysfunction is public opinion. If the median voter were economically literate, numerate, free of status quo bias, and non-paranoid, there would be no need for books about abundance. Abundance would be here already.
True as it might be, I don't think calling voters economically illiterate is a good strategy to getting elected. Flattering their egos and blaming special interests tends to be more succesful.
It's so amusing to watch Klein and Thompson declare "eureka" after finally realizing some of the things that libertarians/economists have been saying for years. Unfortunately, they still haven't read the literature on public choice theory and therefore falsely believe that the solution isn't less government but just "better" government. I guess we we will have to wait another couple of decades for this second blinding glimpse of the obvious.
How are they claiming “Eureka”—or more to your point, being originators of the idea? No where in the book or on their tour are they doing that. They have been effective at getting more attention, and have cited lots of good work that people are doing. Being upset about them being successful isn’t really good for the movement.
That's because they don't want the same thing as libertarians. They (and most people who read them) still want the kinds of things government does like public education and infrastructure, they just look to other places where they do this better for ideas.
Its kind of funny that they've been attacked from the left for being too tolerant toward private industry, because the leftists have a core belief that nothing provided by the market can ever actually be good. You're basically doing the inverse by arguing nothing provided by the state can ever actually be good. Klein and Thompson see examples of both state and private industry providing plentiful efficient resources and are more interested in that outcome than in who does it.
If you read my comment again, you will see that I make reference to "public choice theory" which is a large body of economic thought/data which argues that, in fact, the likelihood of BOTH "state and private industry providing plentiful efficient resources" is very, very low. And, in this respect, it is amusing that you mention public education and infrastructure, two very notable examples where the state provision is notoriously very bad for exactly the type of reasons noted in public choice theory.
You also fail to make a basic distinction between providing a service and merely paying for it. Take public education. Although a pretty strong argument can be made that the government should pay for public education at the K-12 level, that does not necessarily mean that the government should provide it with monopolistic state-run schools which very often impose a "one size fits all" mediocrity, particularly in the marginal communities that need good education most of all. Conversely, the government paying for K-12 education through something like vouchers will allow competition and consumer choice to provide the same types of benefits of quality and diversity in K-12 education that they do in nearly every other aspect of our lives.
Finally, there are areas where even a libertarian like me wants to see government provision and I would like to see these done efficiently. I recognize however, unlike Klein and Thompson (and possibly you), that a government that tries to do too many things is much less likely to do any of them well. This is a basic insight into organizational structure - the same insight that leads the stock market to exact a "conglomerate discount" on companies that try to be a jack of all trades and therefore become a master of none. This is another reason why Klein/Thompson are misguided in too often believing that abundance can be delivered if we simply unleash "better" government.
I think I have an opening here for some well-intentioned peanut gallery commentary. You usually choose really good covers for your traditionally written books -- even ones that use a comic iconography (Selfish Reasons to Have More Kids.) This one, I wasn't drawn to the cover. Covers shouldn't matter but of course do.
The character faces on Build's cover were too numerous, and too small as a percentage of the page. The Godzilla doesn't look particularly ominous, and clothed in tongue in cheek governmental garb is cute but meh. Uh, why are four people in a flying car? Oh one of them is you, cool. Who are the others do I need to know them? That's a lot of interpretative work to expect of the prospective buyer.
For an extreme illustration [natch] for the sales difference between small characters and large expressive ones (albeit in video games) see the difference between Crush the Castle versus it's less interesting copy a year later, Angry Birds.
You make the same choice in your essay collection books - large tableaus of action, but minuscule facial expressions. This has been a pet peeve of mine, thinking you're inadvertently limiting the reach of your compelling ideas with that visual template.
Side note: I think the cover designers for K&T's Abundance looked at Chopra's book of the same name and said "Hey, let's imitate that" (Font sizing, color, futuristic-but-simple single image taking up similar % of page...)
I read Build, Baby, Build shortly after it came out. I bought Abundance shortly after it came out as well, but haven't read it. One of the biggest problems I have seen is putting a price on the cost of zoning, if at all possible, for use when testifying or writing letters to elected people on the issue. I've been phrasing it "as almost $2 trillion or close to $6,000 per capita annually." I just hope that is acceptable.
>False modesty aside, Build, Baby, Build also provides a more sophisticated political economy than Abundance. Blaming “our dysfunctional and polarized parties” sounds good, but the root cause of democratic dysfunction is public opinion. If the median voter were economically literate, numerate, free of status quo bias, and non-paranoid, there would be no need for books about abundance. Abundance would be here already.
True as it might be, I don't think calling voters economically illiterate is a good strategy to getting elected. Flattering their egos and blaming special interests tends to be more succesful.
It's so amusing to watch Klein and Thompson declare "eureka" after finally realizing some of the things that libertarians/economists have been saying for years. Unfortunately, they still haven't read the literature on public choice theory and therefore falsely believe that the solution isn't less government but just "better" government. I guess we we will have to wait another couple of decades for this second blinding glimpse of the obvious.
How are they claiming “Eureka”—or more to your point, being originators of the idea? No where in the book or on their tour are they doing that. They have been effective at getting more attention, and have cited lots of good work that people are doing. Being upset about them being successful isn’t really good for the movement.
That's because they don't want the same thing as libertarians. They (and most people who read them) still want the kinds of things government does like public education and infrastructure, they just look to other places where they do this better for ideas.
Its kind of funny that they've been attacked from the left for being too tolerant toward private industry, because the leftists have a core belief that nothing provided by the market can ever actually be good. You're basically doing the inverse by arguing nothing provided by the state can ever actually be good. Klein and Thompson see examples of both state and private industry providing plentiful efficient resources and are more interested in that outcome than in who does it.
If you read my comment again, you will see that I make reference to "public choice theory" which is a large body of economic thought/data which argues that, in fact, the likelihood of BOTH "state and private industry providing plentiful efficient resources" is very, very low. And, in this respect, it is amusing that you mention public education and infrastructure, two very notable examples where the state provision is notoriously very bad for exactly the type of reasons noted in public choice theory.
You also fail to make a basic distinction between providing a service and merely paying for it. Take public education. Although a pretty strong argument can be made that the government should pay for public education at the K-12 level, that does not necessarily mean that the government should provide it with monopolistic state-run schools which very often impose a "one size fits all" mediocrity, particularly in the marginal communities that need good education most of all. Conversely, the government paying for K-12 education through something like vouchers will allow competition and consumer choice to provide the same types of benefits of quality and diversity in K-12 education that they do in nearly every other aspect of our lives.
Finally, there are areas where even a libertarian like me wants to see government provision and I would like to see these done efficiently. I recognize however, unlike Klein and Thompson (and possibly you), that a government that tries to do too many things is much less likely to do any of them well. This is a basic insight into organizational structure - the same insight that leads the stock market to exact a "conglomerate discount" on companies that try to be a jack of all trades and therefore become a master of none. This is another reason why Klein/Thompson are misguided in too often believing that abundance can be delivered if we simply unleash "better" government.
I think I have an opening here for some well-intentioned peanut gallery commentary. You usually choose really good covers for your traditionally written books -- even ones that use a comic iconography (Selfish Reasons to Have More Kids.) This one, I wasn't drawn to the cover. Covers shouldn't matter but of course do.
The character faces on Build's cover were too numerous, and too small as a percentage of the page. The Godzilla doesn't look particularly ominous, and clothed in tongue in cheek governmental garb is cute but meh. Uh, why are four people in a flying car? Oh one of them is you, cool. Who are the others do I need to know them? That's a lot of interpretative work to expect of the prospective buyer.
For an extreme illustration [natch] for the sales difference between small characters and large expressive ones (albeit in video games) see the difference between Crush the Castle versus it's less interesting copy a year later, Angry Birds.
You make the same choice in your essay collection books - large tableaus of action, but minuscule facial expressions. This has been a pet peeve of mine, thinking you're inadvertently limiting the reach of your compelling ideas with that visual template.
Side note: I think the cover designers for K&T's Abundance looked at Chopra's book of the same name and said "Hey, let's imitate that" (Font sizing, color, futuristic-but-simple single image taking up similar % of page...)
I bought your book. It’s great and I learned a lot of good arguments for housing.
I read Build, Baby, Build shortly after it came out. I bought Abundance shortly after it came out as well, but haven't read it. One of the biggest problems I have seen is putting a price on the cost of zoning, if at all possible, for use when testifying or writing letters to elected people on the issue. I've been phrasing it "as almost $2 trillion or close to $6,000 per capita annually." I just hope that is acceptable.