A Misleading Dilemma for Progressives -- Editorial
Democrats can embrace both the abundance and anti-monopoly movements without having to choose between them.
TroibNews 
At a recent talk regarding his new book *Abundance*, Ezra Klein criticized the anti-monopoly movement for its “monomaniacal” emphasis on antitrust issues, suggesting that anti-monopolists often attempt to interpret numerous societal problems through the lens of corporate power.
His co-author, Derek Thompson, further developed this argument by stating that in the “abundance” worldview, the government must adopt a pro-business stance, as it is businesses that will construct the housing and clean energy necessary to resolve our nation’s supply issues. He articulated, “to have the progressive outcomes we’re rooting for and to root against companies is to have fully divorced the world that you want from the means to get there.”
Anti-monopolists, however, have expressed their own doubts about the perspectives outlined by Klein and Thompson. In her review of their book, Zephyr Teachout questioned whether the abundance agenda might be “something fairly small-bore and correct or nontrivial and deeply regressive.”
The notion that pro-growth supply-side economics and anti-monopolists must confront each other is misguided. Instead, pro-competition and pro-building policies should be seen as complementary rather than as rivals. Progressive governance requires an integrated approach that pursues both agendas simultaneously, rather than framing them as alternatives. As the Democratic Party seeks strategies to regain the trust of the American populace and establish an economic vision that effectively serves the public, collaboration would be more advantageous than conflict.
For instance, one of the significant supply issues that Klein and Thompson emphasize is the housing shortage, which continually increases costs for Americans.
Klein and Thompson convincingly argue that excessive zoning and permitting regulations present formidable challenges to constructing the millions of housing units needed to close the supply gap and reduce prices. There appears to be no significant disagreement on this point from the anti-monopolist side. However, if policymakers focus solely on addressing these specific aspects of the housing crisis, they may ignore building the type of housing that genuinely benefits working Americans. The anti-monopoly movement has insights on this matter as well.
There is emerging evidence indicating that “mega” corporate investors—those institutional entities owning over 1,000 single-family homes—are becoming influential in local housing markets, leading to increased home prices and rents. These investors entered the market following the 2008 financial crisis, spurred on by federal government incentives for entities to acquire distressed single-family properties. Learning from that experience is crucial. An abundance policy that neglects the market structure surrounding housing ownership could result in a market dominated by wealth-driven corporate landlords, which is unlikely to lead to more affordable housing for the broader public.
Klein downplays the current significance of private investors as a minor issue; however, housing markets operate on a local level, and it is in these areas that corporate ownership is beginning to exert noticeable price pressures. Proactively addressing corporate consolidation does not preclude simultaneous zoning and permitting reforms.
Moreover, there is substantial evidence that numerous landlords are resorting to algorithmic price-fixing software to escalate rents. This phenomenon, referred to as “algorithmic collusion,” allows landlords, who might otherwise compete on pricing, to use shared software and data to drive up rents—sometimes at the expense of supply. If a pro-abundance policy successfully generates millions of new housing units but landlords utilize this software to prevent price competition, working Americans will see little advantage.
Klein and Thompson's focus on clean energy also merits attention, as they highlight the urgent need to ramp up the supply of clean energy to facilitate innovation, lower costs for families, and combat climate change.
However, a supply-focused strategy must consider anticompetitive market dynamics to achieve success. For example, in 11 states, incumbent utilities possess “rights of first refusal” for constructing and connecting new energy transmission lines, enabling them to hinder new entrants like clean power innovators. This situation incentivizes these incumbents to inflate their construction costs—costs that are ultimately passed on to consumers with minimal oversight. One study revealed that employing competitive bidding could reduce energy construction costs by 20 to 30 percent, providing substantial savings for ratepayers.
A pro-abundance strategy that overlooks the competitive issues posed by dominant utility incumbents risks missing out on significant benefits from new entrants and could inadvertently raise consumer energy prices instead of lowering them. Klein and Thompson seem to assume deregulation is the best means to foster abundance, but regulations like those from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission can proactively address these incumbent rights of first refusal. Viewing policymaking as strictly binary—either pro-regulatory or deregulatory—oversimplifies the complexities involved.
Furthermore, Klein and Thompson err in assuming that competition policy bears no relevance to the zoning and permitting issues they highlight. In fact, these restrictions represent barriers to entry, and reducing such barriers is a proven method for enhancing competition and reducing costs. Klein and Thompson could and should embrace pro-competition economics alongside their abundance framework, rather than dismiss it as a narrow concern of the anti-monopoly movement.
Klein and Thompson correctly assert the necessity of increasing America's supply to reduce costs, emphasizing that the private sector will play a pivotal role in this construction. However, to yield tangible benefits for working Americans, it is essential to consider the market dynamics and structures of the firms responsible for building and owning new developments.
An abundance model grounded in healthy competition will enhance cost efficiency, spark innovation, and deliver real results. Conversely, pursuing an agenda focused solely on construction while ignoring issues of corporate power and accountability is likely to repeat the failures of past political endeavors.
Lee Joseph Schmidt for TROIB News
His co-author, Derek Thompson, further developed this argument by stating that in the “abundance” worldview, the government must adopt a pro-business stance, as it is businesses that will construct the housing and clean energy necessary to resolve our nation’s supply issues. He articulated, “to have the progressive outcomes we’re rooting for and to root against companies is to have fully divorced the world that you want from the means to get there.”
Anti-monopolists, however, have expressed their own doubts about the perspectives outlined by Klein and Thompson. In her review of their book, Zephyr Teachout questioned whether the abundance agenda might be “something fairly small-bore and correct or nontrivial and deeply regressive.”
The notion that pro-growth supply-side economics and anti-monopolists must confront each other is misguided. Instead, pro-competition and pro-building policies should be seen as complementary rather than as rivals. Progressive governance requires an integrated approach that pursues both agendas simultaneously, rather than framing them as alternatives. As the Democratic Party seeks strategies to regain the trust of the American populace and establish an economic vision that effectively serves the public, collaboration would be more advantageous than conflict.
For instance, one of the significant supply issues that Klein and Thompson emphasize is the housing shortage, which continually increases costs for Americans.
Klein and Thompson convincingly argue that excessive zoning and permitting regulations present formidable challenges to constructing the millions of housing units needed to close the supply gap and reduce prices. There appears to be no significant disagreement on this point from the anti-monopolist side. However, if policymakers focus solely on addressing these specific aspects of the housing crisis, they may ignore building the type of housing that genuinely benefits working Americans. The anti-monopoly movement has insights on this matter as well.
There is emerging evidence indicating that “mega” corporate investors—those institutional entities owning over 1,000 single-family homes—are becoming influential in local housing markets, leading to increased home prices and rents. These investors entered the market following the 2008 financial crisis, spurred on by federal government incentives for entities to acquire distressed single-family properties. Learning from that experience is crucial. An abundance policy that neglects the market structure surrounding housing ownership could result in a market dominated by wealth-driven corporate landlords, which is unlikely to lead to more affordable housing for the broader public.
Klein downplays the current significance of private investors as a minor issue; however, housing markets operate on a local level, and it is in these areas that corporate ownership is beginning to exert noticeable price pressures. Proactively addressing corporate consolidation does not preclude simultaneous zoning and permitting reforms.
Moreover, there is substantial evidence that numerous landlords are resorting to algorithmic price-fixing software to escalate rents. This phenomenon, referred to as “algorithmic collusion,” allows landlords, who might otherwise compete on pricing, to use shared software and data to drive up rents—sometimes at the expense of supply. If a pro-abundance policy successfully generates millions of new housing units but landlords utilize this software to prevent price competition, working Americans will see little advantage.
Klein and Thompson's focus on clean energy also merits attention, as they highlight the urgent need to ramp up the supply of clean energy to facilitate innovation, lower costs for families, and combat climate change.
However, a supply-focused strategy must consider anticompetitive market dynamics to achieve success. For example, in 11 states, incumbent utilities possess “rights of first refusal” for constructing and connecting new energy transmission lines, enabling them to hinder new entrants like clean power innovators. This situation incentivizes these incumbents to inflate their construction costs—costs that are ultimately passed on to consumers with minimal oversight. One study revealed that employing competitive bidding could reduce energy construction costs by 20 to 30 percent, providing substantial savings for ratepayers.
A pro-abundance strategy that overlooks the competitive issues posed by dominant utility incumbents risks missing out on significant benefits from new entrants and could inadvertently raise consumer energy prices instead of lowering them. Klein and Thompson seem to assume deregulation is the best means to foster abundance, but regulations like those from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission can proactively address these incumbent rights of first refusal. Viewing policymaking as strictly binary—either pro-regulatory or deregulatory—oversimplifies the complexities involved.
Furthermore, Klein and Thompson err in assuming that competition policy bears no relevance to the zoning and permitting issues they highlight. In fact, these restrictions represent barriers to entry, and reducing such barriers is a proven method for enhancing competition and reducing costs. Klein and Thompson could and should embrace pro-competition economics alongside their abundance framework, rather than dismiss it as a narrow concern of the anti-monopoly movement.
Klein and Thompson correctly assert the necessity of increasing America's supply to reduce costs, emphasizing that the private sector will play a pivotal role in this construction. However, to yield tangible benefits for working Americans, it is essential to consider the market dynamics and structures of the firms responsible for building and owning new developments.
An abundance model grounded in healthy competition will enhance cost efficiency, spark innovation, and deliver real results. Conversely, pursuing an agenda focused solely on construction while ignoring issues of corporate power and accountability is likely to repeat the failures of past political endeavors.
Lee Joseph Schmidt for TROIB News
Find more stories on Business, Economy and Finance in TROIB business
