Podcast Summary

The Realignment

Episode 561 | Jeff Hauser vs. Paul Williams – Debating What the Abundance Agenda Gets Right and Wrong
Date: July 15, 2025
Host: Marshall Kosloff
Guests:

• Jeff Hauser (Revolving Door Project)
• Paul Williams (Center for Public Enterprise)

Overview

This episode features a lively, substantive debate on the "Abundance Agenda"—a rising framework in American politics and policy aiming to radically increase the country’s capacity to produce essential goods like housing, energy, and infrastructure. The conversation delves into both the promise and pitfalls of this approach, especially as it moves from niche circles into mainstream discourse, driven by Ezra Klein and Derek Thompson’s bestselling book, Abundance. The host, Marshall Kosloff, seeks to draw out where the two guests— Hauser, a left-wing skeptic and critic of corporate power, and Williams, a practitioner and proponent working with local agencies—agree, disagree, and see potential for coalition or friction.

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. What Is the Abundance Agenda? (00:00–09:00)

• The Abundance Agenda pushes for more housing, energy, infrastructure—"more of everything we want"—through regulatory reform, public investment, and removing barriers.
• Paul Williams describes abundance as pragmatic, “an all of the above approach to achieve more of what we want, whether it’s affordable housing, clean energy, or economic development” (08:25).
• Jeff Hauser is wary: “Much of the rest of the abundance book leaves us quite cold...we fight corporate power. We think it’s a mistake to treat permitting reform as a simple win for the public when it’s so often used as an excuse for more pipelines and fossil fuel projects” (07:14–07:50).

2. Origins and Nature of the “Abundance” Movement (13:07–16:49)

• Williams details the grassroots origins of the modern YIMBY (“Yes In My Backyard”) movement, tracing it back to young renters excluded from California housing markets:

  “Renters who couldn’t afford to live in San Francisco got mad, started forming these organizations and convinced people that this was a thing worth doing...that have now gone on to do some really important work changing zoning laws” (13:07).

• The hosts and both guests agree: though DC, New York, and San Francisco punditry shape discussions, the actual work is often done at the state/local level by people not aligned neatly with a singular ideology.

3. Difference Between YIMBYism and ‘Abundance’ (16:49–19:42)

• Williams sees strong overlap between YIMBY and Abundance:

  “People use the term abundance to describe something that maybe I don’t like, but like...on the core issue for housing and energy, there are many places blocking the investment and development we want. The playbook is very similar.” (17:19)

• Hauser clarifies support for density, but raises the “health and safety” caveat, noting issues with building on floodplains or fire-prone land—“I support 99% of what I take to be the YIMBY housing agenda...but we must have health and safety standards” (19:42). Hauser also objects to linking left-wing politics with upper-middle-class nimbyism in cities like SF or LA.

4. Permitting Reform and Environmental/Local Politics (24:59–27:19)

• Williams observes a growing disconnect between national pundit conversations and the struggles of local/state groups facing environmentalist resistance to urban density:

  “There’s a large and growing…disconnect between the national pundit and media class conversation and the local and state based organizations that are actively doing abundance related work in their states and cities every day” (24:59).

5. Corporate Power, Antitrust, and the Abundance Debate (27:19–34:31)

• Williams critiques the “bad answer” from Derek Thompson dismissing antitrust as relevant to abundance politics—stressing that restrictive zoning favors only the biggest developers:

  “The people that are locked out…none of your small and mid size developers are able to play in that game...all these cities are blocking [smaller players]—a total layup for anti-monopoly work” (28:33).

• Hauser highlights RealPage, an obscure but powerful company accused of facilitating landlord rent collusion:

  "RealPage is a company that exists to facilitate the collusion of landlords on setting prices...the fact RealPage is not one of the most famous companies in the country and one of the greatest villains is one of the biggest mistakes of the Biden administration" (30:33).

• Furthermore, Hauser challenges the book for “AI is built in this future on the collective knowledge of humanity and so its profits are shared,” but notes:

  "Nothing in the book describes how the political economy would come to be such that AI profits would be shared widely" (33:55).

6. Technology, State Capacity, and Progress Studies (35:30–39:11)

• Paul Williams distinguishes local abundance/“get stuff built” movements from the more theoretical, tech-optimist “progress studies” crowd. Most real-world efforts have little to do with Silicon Valley actors or the “abundance as solved by technology” outlook.
• Williams credits Operation Warp Speed (COVID vaccines) as a model for “does government have state capacity to cut through bottlenecks and build quickly?” but stresses:

  “The core organizations doing this work...that make up the abundance movement...that's not what their focus is” (37:03).

7. Elite Capture and the Dangers of Technocracy (41:09–43:04)

• Jeff Hauser worries about conflicts of interest:

  “Joe Lonsdale…is going to fund a bunch of AI proficient people to work at the FDA in order to hasten approval of new medicines. I’m worried about what might get approved and he has enormous conflicts of interest…That is the type of thing we should be very worried about” (41:15).

• On historic state capacity, Hauser laments post-Solyndra Democratic caution, wishing for more “self-confidence among Democrats generally that…investing directly [like rural electrification in the New Deal] can pay off” (43:04).

8. Balancing Government Requirements with Abundance (and Corporate Power) (46:14–54:29)

• Paul Williams on public requirements for projects:

  “Anytime you put a certain requirement on, it adds cost…there are all sorts of standards that are not up for negotiation for health and safety standards…So the right approach is being proactive, case by case, to make it work and not just adding requirement after requirement if it kills the project” (46:14).

• Hauser draws a distinction in public/private collaborations:

  “We’re never against the idea of hiring someone for technical expertise, but we’re opposed to giving policymaking authority to someone on the basis of private world connections…Experience matters, so do your incentives” (50:18–54:29).

9. National “Abundance” Discourse is Drowning Out Local Consensus (54:29–61:26)

• Marshall Kosloff worries that national “abundance” discourse (largely focused on the book’s fame and elite actors) risks overshadowing the reality that state/local coalitions are where real, sometimes bipartisan progress is made—including in surprising contexts, like red-state regulatory reforms:

  “I want to make sure it doesn't sound like cope...it's not just because Derek and Ezra are famous. It's about Paul's perspective that abundance is way more than Derek and Ezra. It's actually tens, if not hundreds of groups who've been working on this for far longer than the book” (54:29).

• Hauser agrees most of his critiques pertain to the book and national scene, not the nitty-gritty of local organizing:

  “When we are criticizing abundance, we are really criticizing the book and the adherents. And it is incredibly influential in Washington D.C.…I agree a lot of what we're saying doesn't apply to local groups fighting for more housing” (56:25).

• Williams warns, “the polarizing [national] conversation makes coalition building at the state level harder...It’s really important to consider that what we’re saying...might be making it harder for people working hard to change laws we all agree should change” (58:40).
• Kosloff closes with a call for more nuance, noting state-level victories often require unlikely progressive-conservative coalitions, and the national culture-war flavor of online abundance debates can undermine on-the-ground success (60:08).

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• Paul Williams, on YIMBY origins:
  “Renters who couldn’t afford to live in San Francisco got mad…this federation of renters was going to bat against homeowners who were opposed to apartment projects. I think it’s important to have a little bit of that history to understand where these ideas came from.” (13:07)

• Jeff Hauser, on corporate-fueled policy failures:
  “RealPage is a company that exists to facilitate the collusion of landlords on setting prices…one of the greatest villains.” (30:33)

• Paul Williams, on local vs. national:
  “There’s a large and growing…disconnect between the national pundit and media class conversation and the local and state organizations doing abundance-related work in their states and cities every day.” (24:59)

• Jeff Hauser, on bringing business people into government:
  “We don’t want to treat business experience as a substitute for public policy experience...Experience matters, so do your incentives.” (54:29)

• Paul Williams, on regulatory balance:
  “Anytime you…add requirement for X onto the project, it adds cost…The right approach is…work with [builders] and try and figure out what things will make it work and what things will break it. Because what we want is for the investment to happen.” (46:14)

• Host (Marshall Kosloff), on polarization's risks:
  "This national level conversation is spilling into the local...I've just been feeling like I'm going to have to spend a year doing damage control. The space for common ground is bigger in a non-superficial sense than the Twitter discourse would suggest." (60:08)

Key Timestamps

• 00:00–04:31: Host’s introduction and context for the debate
• 06:28–09:04: Guests introduce themselves and positions on abundance
• 13:07–16:49: Paul Williams shares the roots of YIMBY and abundance movements
• 19:42–24:59: Debate on NIMBY/Density, health/safety, and Sunbelt/Coastal challenges
• 27:19–30:33: Corporate power, antitrust, and the case of RealPage
• 33:55: Hauser critiques techno-optimism in the “abundance” vision
• 35:30–39:11: Abundance, techno-optimism, progress studies, and state capacity
• 41:09–43:04: Hauser’s conflict-of-interest concerns and historical analogies
• 46:14–49:03: Williams, public requirements, and project financing in housing
• 50:18–54:29: Hauser on government, expertise, and the revolving door
• 54:29–61:26: Closing thoughts: national/local gap; polarization’s risks; coalition-building

Takeaways

• Abundance is an evolving, contested idea: Beyond a single book or set of thinkers, it represents a living, grassroots policy approach mostly visible at the state/local level.
• Agreement exists on core housing/energy supply issues, but divides persist over tech optimism, corporate power, and regulatory reform.
• Local coalitions often cut across ideological lines and national polarization—risking disruption when national debates go ‘culture war.’
• Caution against elite capture and simplistic deregulation was voiced, even as both guests called for pragmatic, targeted solutions to America’s supply, affordability, and development crises.