Latest news with #EzraKlein
Newsweek
16 hours ago
- Politics
- Newsweek
Abundance in Orbit—The Case for Democrats Reclaiming NASA's Bold Vision
Advocates for ideas and draws conclusions based on the interpretation of facts and data. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. NASA is in crisis. The space agency that once embodied American ambition—proof that our government could do bold things and solve hard problems—is now unraveling before our eyes. More than 2,000 senior staff are heading for the exits. Without help from Congress, science programs will be slashed to the bone. And a permanent administrator is nowhere in sight. Unless a different vision emerges—one rooted in public ambition and scientific leadership—the U.S. risks forfeiting a field it once defined. The good news? There's a growing hunger for that kind of vision. The success of the "abundance agenda" in other policy arenas has shown that voters are ready to believe in big things again. Space should be next. Jared Isaacman, the billionaire entrepreneur and civilian astronaut many expected to lead NASA, had potential to offer exactly this kind of leadership—until his nomination was scrapped under White House scrutiny. A NASA logo is displayed at the entrance to the Mary W. Jackson NASA Headquarters building on June 2, 2025, in Washington, D.C. A NASA logo is displayed at the entrance to the Mary W. Jackson NASA Headquarters building on June 2, 2025, in Washington, was graceful in his exit, but his recent commentary has had a clear through-line: space is the high ground, one that gives any country who ventures into it a clear advantage. As Democrats struggle to connect with the American people, with recent polls showing a 30-year low in popularity, now is the time to show the U.S. electorate a path of inspiration. And the rise of the abundance agenda, applied to space sciences, can be a critical way to galvanize support. Ezra Klein and Derek Thompson's bestselling book, Abundance, has shifted the conversation primarily in terms of housing abundance, and recent elections have shown the stickiness of that issue with voters. But Klein and Thompson also have a deeper diagnosis: American innovation systems are broken. Risk aversion in funding the sciences, high administrative burdens and the pressure of scientific discoveries needing to be converted into mass production, are what hold us back. Now, as scarcity politics grips Congress, Democrats can seize the opportunity to do more than defend science—they can champion it. By making the case for a bolder, federally-backed innovation agenda, they can show voters how public investment has always been the engine behind America's greatest breakthroughs. What has been referred to as a stagnating of the U.S. innovation ecosystem, and the "undermining of science in America," should be leveraged by Democrats to promise voters not just greatness, but more. As a guest on Andrew Schutlz's Flagrant podcast, former U.S. Secretary of Transportation Pete Buttigieg outlined how federally funded projects have led to monumental ideas later transformed into usable reality, including the internet itself. Still, the challenge Democrats face is significant. These sorts of projects are costly, and they don't come with any certainty, but that's the point. Unlike the private industry, profit isn't the motivating factor behind our exploration of the unknown. Helping voters see the long-term value of such investments will undoubtedly take work. But we've done it before. In May 1961, President John F. Kennedy promised America the Moon. The endeavor would demand "a major national commitment of scientific and technical manpower, material and facilities ... where they are already thinly spread," Kennedy said. And then, it happened. Beyond international prestige and the assurance of democracy's strength over communism, the Apollo program seeded "spin-off" technologies that reshaped everyday life. Just as important, it proved what government can accomplish when it channels its full capacity toward shared purpose. Even after Apollo, NASA had what was referred to as an "aggressive plan" that would continue to position the U.S. as a leader in the exploration and development of the space frontier. That vision was later shelved, a casualty of budget cuts and shifting political winds. Still, the principle remains: science moves when government moves with it. We saw this again with Operation Warp Speed, where President Donald Trump's Department of Health and Human Services and Defense used a "whole-of-America" approach to bring the COVID-19 vaccine to the masses, and quickly. But this spirit is fading. Republicans have seemingly turned their back on the idea of science as a public good. In response to the president's proposed cuts to NASA Science, every prior associate administrator of Science signed onto a joint letter to the House Appropriations Committee warning of the potential reduction of funds. As Congress grapples with what funds to provide NASA in this new fiscal year, Democrats should ask themselves: can we be the party that reclaims science as a shared American project? Can we speak to voters' appetite for ambition? A promise to pursue abundance—in space, in science, in national purpose—may be the boldest and most unifying offer Democrats can make. Trump has promised voters a path of greatness, but he's steering our science agencies dangerously off course. It's high time for Democrats to chart a better one. Riley L. Roberts is a writer, speechwriter, and strategist whose work spans politics, business, sports, and culture. As a ghostwriter and collaborator, he has authored or contributed to more than a dozen books, shaped widely published op-eds and essays—from The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal to TIME, VOGUE, and The Atlantic, among other outlets—and crafted speeches delivered at the White House, the U.N., foreign parliaments, TED conferences, and beyond. Matthew Beddingfield is a whistleblower attorney based in Washington, D.C., and is currently writing a book on the Apollo 1 fire that occurred in January 1967. He previously worked as a legal reporter for Bloomberg. The views expressed in this article are the writers' own.
Irish Examiner
2 days ago
- Business
- Irish Examiner
'Abundance' is all around us - just look at all our empty buildings
A recent best-selling book, Abundance, written by US columnists Ezra Klein and Derek Thompson, respectively, has captivated policymakers worldwide. The treatise for enabling 21st-century infrastructure argues that there are societal and bureaucratic regulations stultifying growth that must be tackled head-on if cities and municipalities are to achieve their targets whether it be in housing, energy or other fields. In order, 'to have the future we want', the authors argue, 'we need to build and invent more of what we need'. To combat the twin threats of scarcity and supply bottlenecks the duo mention that 'we need a new theory of supply' and 'a new way of thinking about politics, economics and growth'. The authors spotlight California as a prime example of regulatory gridlock, where, they say, environmental mandates and bureaucratic hurdles impede vital infrastructure projects. They highlight the stalled high-speed rail of the kind mastered by China in the mid-2000s, delayed by extensive environmental reports, stakeholder conflicts, and cost overruns. Readers here in Ireland can sympathise with this situation given our own experience of the infamous Children's Hospital which was due to be completed by 2020 but is now delayed to 2026 at a cost of over €2bn, having initially had a modest price tag of €650mn. Ditto MetroLink, which is expected to be constructed by 2028 if we're lucky. Speeding up the planning process as fast as those high-speed rails sounds appealing to those who wish to see our cities and towns scale up. However, behind the veneer of a noble initiative to kickstart desperately needed infrastructure lies a well-funded industry of interests that seek to re-imagine neoliberalism with progressive aesthetics. Far from being a mere book title, the 'Abundance' movement has been pioneered by various think-tanks propped up by oligarchic vested interests. Having managed to branch out beyond policy papers into the very halls of power, these movers and shakers are making headlines day in and day out. From Tesla CEO and former White House staffer Elon Musk's efforts to slash red tape via the Department of Government Efficiency or DOGE to Stripe CEO and Limerick native Patrick Collison's push for deregulated 'charter cities', several public figures are associated either directly or peripherally within the wider movement. One example of a think-tank tied to this movement is the Mercatus Centre. Based in George Mason University (GMU) in the US State of Virginia, it was funded by Charles and David Koch known collectively as the Koch Brothers. These US-Libertarian oil mogul siblings spearheaded attempts across the US to roll back hard-won rights for workers by backing union-busting candidates and legislation via think-tanks such as the Cato and Manhattan Institutes, respectively. The Mercatus Centre is headed by the Libertarian columnist, author and former GMU Professor Tyler Cowen who has advocated for free markets but greater state involvement in so-called mega projects. 'Abundance' in Ireland While some may think this Libertarian ideology is confined to tech bros in the US, the Abundance movement has reached Ireland via the think-tank Progress Ireland. Stripe's Patrick Collison and Cowen have shared platforms, co-written articles and co-ordinated in funding projects. Progress Ireland, funded by Collison and whose executive director is Sean Keyes, formerly of the online business publication The Currency, has influenced policymakers intending to 'connect Ireland to the best of international policymaking in three areas: housing, infrastructure, and innovation.' The recent amendment to the planning bill to allow exemptions for detached cabins or modular-style structures at the back of properties, described colloquially as beds in sheds, is the brainchild of this Abundance-adjacent think-tank following a meeting between Progress Ireland and Taoiseach Micheál Martin's policy adviser Alan Ahearne in government buildings. The planned Ashton Court residential development on a five-acre site overlooking the River Blackwater Estuary in Youghal, Co Cork remains derelict, at the former Loreto Convent and residential services. File picture: Larry Cummins According to the group's housing policy director Seán O'Neill McPartlin, over 300,000 of these garden sheds could be built which will 'allow for a younger person to live independently of the family home" and provide parents with the option to "right-size within their own community while maintaining the support of their family in close proximity". While some were quick to point out the unfortunate situation of people being forced to move out of cabins built without planning permission, the failure to provide adequate long-term, affordable housing solutions has undeniably left us wide open to this sort of unorthodox proposal. But where did the beds in sheds idea come from? What were originally coined as Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) or granny flats built in parts of America and New Zealand, saw homeowners apply for a permit to construct small, inconspicuous homes in gardens that families could rent out. In 2021, ADUs accounted for over a fifth of Los Angeles's new rental homes. The first call to implement this scheme in Ireland came from a group named the Better Planning Alliance, where O'Neill McPartlin had previously worked, which was funded by Emergent Ventures via Mercatus's Tyler Cowen. For its part, Emergent Ventures provides grants to entrepreneurs, and was initially backed by the Libertarian CEO of Palantir Technologies, Peter Thiel. But while Irish ADUs may allow for 'intergenerational movement', the law of unintended consequences may see house prices increase even further. According to Architect Mel Reynolds, if ADUs are rented out house prices could rise between €150,000-€200,000. This will only make it harder for young people to explore the second-hand market, thus benefiting existing homeowners - the very opposite of its stated intention. Another study from Australia titled We Zoned for Density and Got Higher House Prices: Supply and Price Effects of Upzoning Over 20 Years, found that the relaxation of planning rules to allow for higher density development not only failed to increase supply but also led to higher prices. Other empirical evidence suggests that modular housing can also face cost overrun difficulties with such homes for Ukrainians rising from €200,000 when first floated to over €400,000 per unit - a rise of 120%. The attempts to relax planning regulations within properties comes off the back of a more recent announcement around kickstarting the building of apartments by deregulating standards. Under the Planning Design Standards for Apartments, Guidelines for Planning Authorities (2025), new guidelines: will permit the minimum size of a studio apartment to be reduced from the current 37sqm to 32sqm; the requirement of no more than 10% of small two-bedroom apartments permitted in a development will be jettisoned; and the minimum amount of apartments that must have dual aspect windows has also been reduced. In a move that all but eliminates the pretence of ensuring community formation within developments, the government has also removed mandatory 'communal, community and cultural facilities' for individual apartment schemes. What emerges is an image of a vast array of brutalist structures filled with shoe boxes with little to no neighbourly bonds between its occupants. Decrying the attempt by central government to override local development plans, Green Party Councillor Claire Byrne stated that the plan was 'a vicious attack on local government and our city development plan processes'. This announcement follows several pleas from lobbying groups such as Irish Institutional Property (IIP) whose head Pat Farrell has long argued for lower standards for apartments. But while the government is more than happy to meet with well-funded think-tanks and property lobbyists, the refusal to meet with any tenant groups or even consult the public beforehand was denounced as "disquieting" by the Irish Planning Institute (IPI). Describing themselves as 'the very professionals that will have to interpret and implement the changed guidelines', President of the IPI Gavin Lawlor mentioned that far from improving the housing situation, this 'market-led approach' risks exacerbating legal issues. 'This, and allowing changes to already permitted developments, also risks introducing more legal unpredictability,' he said. Ireland's dereliction The truth is that Ireland already has an abundant number of homes. The idea that the State needs to embrace the foreign concept of "abundance" is ludicrous when examining what we already have. As I have written previously in this publication, county councils in Ireland are currently sitting on around 4,400 vacant homes. Indeed, data from An Post shows that in Dublin alone there are well over 14,000 empty residential and commercial properties with 4,000 located in the city centre. The rush to increase supply - any supply, whether it be garden sheds or small apartments - bears all the hallmarks of the supply rush Ireland experienced during the boom in which supply exceeded immediate needs. Instead of rushing to repeat old mistakes, the State should take an active role in revitalising empty units, allowing homeless families and young people to move in. Choosing between a bed in the shed or a shoe box is a dilemma I don't ever want to experience - but it seems like those are the only options being sold to my generation by a government devoid of imagination. Read More Next budget gives State chance to prove young people are a genuine priority
Fast Company
3 days ago
- Politics
- Fast Company
The coming battle among YIMBYs
The YIMBY ('yes in my backyard') movement has achieved remarkable growth in the past few years, uniting people across the political spectrum who share a common belief: It should be easy to build more housing. You can find shared interests among unlikely alliances when you step out of political tribes. People who label themselves as socialists and capitalists are standing at town hall podiums to support and promote abundant housing. High fives! Hooray for unity, right? Insert record scratch. Socialists and capitalists have economic worldviews that are incompatible with each other. There's definitely consensus about the ends (plenty of homes), but the means will be hotly debated. The clash was inevitable, and the recent book by Ezra Klein and Derek Thompson, Abundance, has keyboard warriors starting to realize there are a host of competing opinions on how to get past the gatekeepers who would have homes remain scarce. You might think something as apolitical as a townhouse wouldn't be a lightning rod for a populist left-versus-right debate. The reason is economics. Considering the surge in populism in recent years, it's worth understanding why economics, not 'neighborhood character,' is at the heart of the argument. The Socialist YIMBY Socialist YIMBY advocates believe housing should be universally accessible, treated fundamentally as a human right rather than a commodity to be bought and sold for profit. Prominent democratic socialists, like New York mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani and Minneapolis mayoral candidate Omar Fateh, argue for 'decommodifying' housing, where the government would guarantee homes. Market forces are not part of the equation. A socialist YIMBY is going to want state-managed housing solutions, price controls, rent freezes, and strict regulations on private ownership. Mamdani even said he'd be open to the abolition of private property if it meant getting people places to live. Socialist YIMBYs build their case on fairness, social justice, and community stability. They argue that a free market creates disparities, displaces vulnerable populations, and commodifies essential human needs. The belief here is that removing profit motives from housing reduces speculation, stabilizes communities, and ensures housing stability and equity, prioritizing human dignity and communal well-being above private gain. The Capitalist YIMBY Capitalist YIMBY advocates believe in leveraging market mechanisms. To them, the root cause of housing shortages lies in artificial restrictions imposed by zoning laws, burdensome permitting processes, and other bureaucratic interference. Their economic rationale hinges on the concept of supply and demand, and prices as crucial signals. Capitalist YIMBYs argue that when the price of a type of home goes up in an area, it signals to developers, investors, and builders that demand is high and supply low. Rather than suppressing these signals through artificial price controls, they propose getting rid of laws that prohibit housing and streamline approval processes in order to spur rapid and flexible housing production. They argue that robust competition among builders and investors inherently leads to diverse housing options, lower overall costs, and more innovation in housing solutions. The Perplexed YIMBY A person is standing at the philosophical crossroads to abundant housing and two fellow YIMBYs are giving conflicting directions: 'We have to go left.' 'No, we have to go right.' Socialists look at capitalist solutions as inherently exploitative, always creating more inequalities, and they believe profit motives are what make homes too expensive. Capitalists look at socialist solutions as inevitably leading to inefficiencies, housing shortages, and stagnation. When I've asked people about their take on this conflict, a common response is something like 'We'll have enough homes for everyone if building regulations are relaxed and the government is in charge of low-income housing.' I believe that's wishful thinking, since it brings us right back to the fundamental disagreement on economics. A capitalist will say, 'There is a market for small and modest housing, so get the government out of the way.' The socialist will say, 'We don't believe you.' I truly believe that populists on the left and the right want there to be enough homes for everyone. But it's also clear that the populist left and right will forever treat each other like they're living in a cartoon or comic book. 'I'm the good guy and you're the bad guy.' In spite of their shared interest in abundant housing, the socialist YIMBYs and capitalist YIMBYs are never going to agree on the means to the end. The best first step is something both sides claim to support: getting rid of the local regulatory barriers that are preventing anyone from building a granny flat, a townhouse, a duplex, etc.
CNN
4 days ago
- Politics
- CNN
Analysis: Trump could get burned by conspiracy theory fires he's helped spread
Fighting disinformation Donald Trump MediaFacebookTweetLink Follow Ezra Klein begins one of his recent podcasts by telling a joke that has been making the rounds. Basically, a conspiracy theorist dies and ascends to heaven. God is there to greet him and explains that as part of the celestial welcome, he will answer any question the man has. 'Please, I must know the answer to this one,' the man says, 'who killed John F. Kennedy?' God answers instantly, 'That's easy: Lee Harvey Oswald.' Shocked, the man murmurs, 'This goes higher than I had thought!' This is the dilemma in which Donald Trump finds himself. Whatever he does to deflect and distract from the Jeffrey Epstein morass only deepens the suspicions — including those about the two men's relationship. According to a recent Reuters/Ipsos poll, 69% of Americans, including 62% of Republicans, believe the government is hiding Epstein's alleged client list. This is understandable; there are so many unanswered questions about Epstein. How did he become so rich? What is in the mountains of computer files and videos recovered from his homes and properties? Since he had already tried to commit suicide once while in jail, why was he not monitored properly afterward? But there is a larger problem for Trump. Since the 'birther' charges against Barack Obama, he has encouraged, ridden and profited from a wave of conspiracy theories that accused the so-called deep state of all kinds of crimes, which were then quickly covered up. Now he presides over that very state and has control of all the secrets. Why will he not reveal them? Conspiracy theories have a long and rich history in the United States. Americans lived as second-class citizens of the British Empire, far from the center of authority in London. They imagined all kinds of plots being hatched in London to keep them subordinate and servile. That turned into what the historian Richard Hofstadter in 1964 called 'the paranoid style in American politics,' with periodic eruptions of rabid fear of Freemasons, Catholics, Jews, bankers and communists. Joseph McCarthy defined the modern age of conspiracy theory, charging that the American government had been taken over by traitors and spies for foreign powers. The journalist Anna Merlan brought the story up to date in a deeply reported 2019 book, 'Republic of Lies,' in which she argued that in recent decades, conspiracy theories entered into mainstream politics. Unlike earlier eras when conspiracy theorists were mostly powerless outsiders, they are now central — and increasingly normalized — figures in American political and cultural life. Donald Trump is the main character in this story, having come to power and returned to power after aggressively promoting birtherism, election fraud and many other conspiracies. He has also brought into the mainstream people like Alex Jones and Kash Patel, who have trafficked in even more extreme theories and insinuations. Michael Flynn, Trump's first national security adviser, spread the lie that Hillary Clinton was connected to child sex rings. The challenge for Trump is that, having long fanned the flames of anti-statism and anti-elitism, he now sits in the White House, running the state and its elites. His administration has released thousands of files about the murders of JFK, Robert F. Kennedy and Martin Luther King Jr. There were no smoking guns revealing any major conspiracy, but no one in the administration can quite bring themselves to admit that. It would suggest that prior administrations and elites had not in fact been lying to the American people. But to do that is to lose credibility with their base. Trump is an artful politician who knows how to handle his base. But this time it is proving tough even for him — perhaps because he clearly had some kind of relationship with Epstein. He has tried to deflect attention by raising other conspiracy theories — chiefly, that Obama tried to organize a coup against him. He brought up old allegations about Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden. But they all have the feeling of desperation about them. As Charlie Warzel notes in The Atlantic, on July 20, when the questions about Epstein were mounting, Trump posted on Truth Social 33 times. He demanded that the Washington Commanders football team change its name back to the Redskins and shared an AI-generated video of Obama being handcuffed by the FBI in front of a smiling Trump in the Oval Office. Patel, the FBI director, recently claimed on Joe Rogan's podcast that he has found a secret vault in the FBI, full of dark secrets no one had ever seen. Forget about Epstein, they seem to be saying; it turns out there are hundreds more conspiracy theories to dangle in front of the MAGA faithful. Trump's ferocious response to the Epstein affair will likely only deepen the public's distrust toward institutions and politicians, create more online radicalization, and further hollow out our polarized political ecosystem. But he is playing with fires that may for the first time, if not consume him, then burn him badly.
Sydney Morning Herald
7 days ago
- Business
- Sydney Morning Herald
A new book aims to fix housing affordability, but there's a better solution for Victoria
Melbourne's time in the property price doldrums could be over, ending a dream run for first home buyers in the Victorian capital. But it wasn't only the politics of Abundance, the economics book that's sitting on the nightstands of federal cabinet members, that got us there. The new book by US-based journalists Derek Thompson and Ezra Klein calls for deregulation to ease supply-side restrictions on housing and other vital industries to make houses (as well as healthcare and clean energy) more affordable, accessible and abundant. It doesn't deviate from conventional economic wisdom in this regard, and it's been widely read in Canberra. Its ideas are likely to be part of the discussion at next month's productivity summit. Australia's political system already has a neoliberal consensus; there is bipartisan support to grow the economy by making it easier for corporations to do business and for capital to flow. This same logic is already applied to the housing market, visible in our recent preference for supply-side solutions. One key area where Thompson and Klein hit the nail on the head, however, is the negative effect that restrictive zoning has on housing supply. Victoria has been building more new homes per person than NSW for years, but, like much of Australia, it still faces challenges from local councils to promote infill development and improve housing access in inner Melbourne. It's against this backdrop that the latest house price figures were released on Thursday. Victoria's affordability achievement was modest; house prices in Melbourne are 2.7 per cent below their December 2021 peak on Domain data, but remain unaffordable to most. Melbourne's median is $1,064,000, Sydney's is $1,722,000, and Brisbane's $1,060,000. However, lending data show first home buyers made use of the 3½-year window to purchase. Loading 'It was good, it has to be seen as good, prices did come down a bit,' AMP chief economist Dr Shane Oliver says. 'That would have provided some opportunities for first home buyers that they wouldn't have otherwise had. 'But affordability is still relatively poor in Victoria, it's just not as bad as some other places – Sydney, Brisbane and even Adelaide.'
